Blogger Mehman Huseynov in an interview with Meydan TV mentioned that some time ago, employees of the State Security Service took his family members living in Baku to certain place and showed them his intimate images. M. Huseynov said that after his release from prison in 2019, a hidden camera was placed in his room and intimate images were taken in order to blackmail and discourage him from his professional activities.
“Tribunat” has analyzed journalist allegations from the perspective of right of inviolability of private life.
Initially, these allegations are not something new. In recent decades, the Azerbaijani authorities have widely used this method as a means of political pressure against opponents, independent journalists, and representatives of civil society. The forms of pressure have changed over the years, and intrusions into the private lives of activists have become widespread, along with classic physical violence and arrests. Digital violence is used as an effective tool, especially to silence, discredit, and discourage critics from their activities.
In this sense, threats to secretly record and distribute intimate images (revenge porn), the seizure of personal correspondence and information through hacker attacks, as well as the use of these materials as a tool for blackmail have become a real source of danger for journalists and activists in Azerbaijan. In such case, not only is the private life of the target violated, but also their professional activities, freedom of expression and public reputation are seriously damaged.
In 2010, on the eve of the elections, intimate videos of the private life of the chief of the newspaper “Azadliq” Azar Ahmadov were leaked online. The materials were first sent to media editorial offices, and then shared on social networks and various platforms. In the meantime, media representatives and observers said that such cases were not random, but, on the contrary, a familiar method used against people who took a critical position almost every election.
A year later, in 2011, “Lider” TV broadcast secretly filmed videos of Natig Adilov, another employee of the “Azadlig” newspaper, and Gan Turali (Tural Jafarov), currently the editor-in-chief of the kulis.az website, in their hotel room in Oghuz district. In 2012, both journalists were summoned to the prosecutor's office regarding this fact and were recognized as victims in a criminal case opened under Article 156.1 of the Criminal Code (violation of right of inviolability of private life). Nonetheless, the journalists’ complaints were not satisfied in the court proceedings on the civil lawsuit filed against “Lider” TV and “Afra” hotel for interference in privacy and protection of honor and dignity, and they were not paid any compensation. Due to the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies, the journalists appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Court recognized the complaint of lack of a fair trial in Tural Jafarov and ruled to payment of compensation for this violation.
In 2012, investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova was also subjected to interference in her private life due to her corruption investigations. Hidden cameras were installed in her home and footage of her private and intimate life was taken. Later on, the materials were sent to the journalist, demanding that she cease her professional activities, otherwise she was threatened with the publication of the footage. After she refused to cease her investigations, a video belonging to K. Ismayilova was sent to various media outlets and distributed. In its decision on this case, the ECHR considered the failure of the state authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the interference in the journalist's private life unlawful and recognized a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).
Following participation in the organization of a march in Baku on the eve of International Women's Day in 2020, activist Gulnara Mehdiyeva's Facebook, Gmail, Protonmail, and Telegram accounts were hacked and her personal documents, photos, and correspondence were illegally obtained. As a result, closed online groups dedicated to women's rights and LGBTI issues were deactivated, and the data of thousands of users in these groups was put at risk in terms of security. A year after, on February 25, 2021, personal voice messages obtained during the previous cyberattack were published on the Internet, and G. Mehdiyeva became the target of a deliberate discrediting campaign. Even though law enforcement bodies were appealed regarding these facts, the police refused to investigate, completely terminated the case, citing the “lack of technical capabilities” to identify the IP addresses provided, and did not lodge a criminal case despite the appeals. While Gulnara Mehdiyeva complained to the court about the inaction of law enforcement agencies, the court refused to consider her complaint on the merits.
In 2021, the Facebook account of Narmin Shahmarzadeh, an activist who was one of the organizers of the “March 8 - For Our Rights” march, was hacked, the profile name was changed, fake messages were sent in her name, and personal photos were shared. N. Shahmarzadeh stated at the time that the attacks on her account occurred after she began sharing information about the march.
In February 2023, following the arrest of activist Bakhtiyar Hajiyev, images and correspondence regarding his private life were circulated on social networks and Telegram channels. Despite complaints, no effective investigation was conducted and no legal outcome was achieved.
The Pegasus Project, a July 2021 investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), found that a spyware program called Pegasus, developed by the Israeli company NSO Group, was used against journalists, human rights defenders, and public activists in various countries. This program secretly accessed individuals' mobile phones and monitored their correspondence, calls, photos, and other personal information. The report emphasizes that this spyware program, officially presented as a tool to fight crime, actually provides regimes around the world with widespread access to the personal information of any person with problems of corruption and democratic control. The practice was revealed to be widespread after journalists gained access to a list of 50,000 phone numbers allegedly targeted by a spyware program. The list included a number of Azerbaijani citizens, independent journalists, and activists, whose personal data was later leaked to the public.
Even though individuals who reported being monitored through spyware have complained, those complaints have not been effectively investigated by domestic courts, and 33 cases against Azerbaijan are currently being considered by the ECtHR and are in the communication stage.
Inviolability of private life in the legislation
In accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, everyone has the right to personal inviolability and to the secrecy of his private and family life. Except in cases provided for by law, interference with personal and family life is prohibited. Everyone has the right to protection from unlawful interference with private and family life. The collection, storage, use and dissemination of information about someone's private life without their consent is not allowed. Except in cases specified by law, no one may be monitored, videotaped, photographed, recorded or otherwise subjected to such actions without their knowledge or objection. The State guarantees everyone's right to confidentiality of correspondence, telephone conversations, mail, telegraph and other means of communication. This right may be restricted in accordance with the law in order to prevent crime or to reveal the truth during the investigation of a criminal case.
Article 156 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan recognizes violation of privacy as a criminal offense. The dissemination, sale or transfer to another individual, or illegal collection of information that constitutes a secret of private and family life, documents reflecting such information, video and photo materials, audio recordings, is punishable by a fine of one thousand to two thousand AZNs, community service for two hundred and forty to four hundred and eighty hours, or correctional labor for a term of up to one year. The same acts committed by an official using own formal position or using unmanned aerial vehicles are punishable by restriction of liberty for a term of up to two years or imprisonment for a term of up to two years, with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.
Criminal prosecution for violation of privacy is conducted by the prosecutor's office either on the basis of a complaint from the victim, or on the initiative without a complaint from the victim.
The right to inviolability of private life, being an integral part of personality rights, ensures the protection of honor and dignity, while interference with this right harms the honor and dignity of an individual.
In accordance with the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated December 24, 2025 “On the Protection of Personal Rights”, information defaming the honor and dignity of a person is understood as written (text, picture, caricature, audio, video, etc.), as well as oral information that degrades the individual and is not in compliance with the truth. Information defaming business reputation is information aimed at creating a negative opinion in third parties about the business activities of an individual and the quality of this activity and is not in compliance with the truth. In order for any information to be considered information defaming the honor and dignity, as well as business reputation, the two listed conditions must exist together. The right to respect for private and family life includes the right to maintain the secrecy of private and family life, to be protected from unlawful interference, that is, the collection, storage, use and dissemination of information about one's private life without consent, as well as, except in cases specified by law, from being monitored without one's knowledge or objection, from being subjected to video or photo shooting, audio recording and other such actions, including the right to protect the confidentiality of information transmitted by correspondence, telephone conversations, mail, telegraph and other means of communication.
According to the position of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, even if the information constituting private and family life is true, the use, dissemination or malicious disclosure of such information without the consent of the individual may be considered an unlawful interference with the inviolability of private life. Even if such interference does not always result in defamation of honor and dignity, it leads to a violation of privacy and other personal rights. In particular, the dissemination of confidential information such as health status, intimate relationships, family status and correspondence in the mass media or social networks may cause more serious moral harm.
Nonetheless, the Plenum Resolution does not provide clear instructions on criminal prosecution and procedural mechanisms regarding the inviolability of privacy. Resolution does not specifically regulate covert filming and the legal assessment of such interference.
In M.Ș.D. v. Romania (Application no. 28935/21, §125), the ECtHR noted that in cases of “revenge pornography”, i.e. the public dissemination on the internet of intimate photographs of the victim by an individual with whom the victim had a previous intimate relationship without her consent, the protection of the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 of the Convention requires a criminal-law response.
In Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (Applications Nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, §§116-120), the Court held that the acts complained of by the applicant were of a very serious nature and constituted a serious violation of human dignity. These acts included the unauthorised entry into her flat, the installation of secret video cameras in her home, the unauthorised filming of the most intimate moments of her private life in the inviolable environment of her home and the subsequent dissemination of those images to the public, as well as the sending of a letter threatening to publicly humiliate her.
The Court emphasised that the violation had been committed against a well-known investigative journalist who had been highly critical of the Government. The fact that the threatening letter sent to the applicant required him to cease his activities clearly showed, in the general context of the case, that the threats were linked to his professional activities. Since the applicant was known for her journalistic activities, it seemed difficult to explain the threats of public humiliation directed against her by motives other than those activities, and that this possibility could only be ruled out if an effective and credible investigation had been carried out. It was therefore of particular importance for the authorities to examine the connection between the threats and the applicant’s professional activities and who had made them.
The experience of investigating facts related to the inviolability of private life shows that law enforcement bodies refuse to conduct an investigation for various reasons, refuse to initiate a criminal case, or the investigation into the case results in a long period of inaction. Resultantly, in most cases such cases do not reach the court.
Via the data of the State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan on cybercrime covering the years 2005–2024, while only 1 criminal fact was recorded in 2006, this figure increased to 24 in 2024, but these figures do not correspond. Separate data are not provided for Article 156 of the Criminal Code. However, the highest figure recorded in 2022 for the chapter to which that article belongs (Crimes against the Constitutional Rights and Freedoms of Individual and Citizen) is 214 criminal facts. There are also no official data on Article 156 on cases submitted to the courts of first instance. Upon looking at the indicators of satisfaction of applications and complaints submitted to the prosecutor's office regarding the constitutional rights of citizens, the statistics up to 2019 confirm the decreasing dynamics every year, and in that year this figure decreased to 8.
“Tribunat” concludes that, while domestic law criminalizes the violation of privacy, effective protection of this right in practice is problematic. In particular, the lack of effective prosecution and procedural mechanisms for forms of interference such as covert filming and digital violence contributes to a climate of impunity.
