Rule 9.2 – Communication on the Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan Group of Cases (65286/13)

Free Voices Collective submitted a Rule 9.2 Communication on the Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan group of cases to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 12 October 2026, ahead of the Committee’s 1577th Human Rights (DH) meeting scheduled for December 2026.

The communication concerns the continued execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments in the Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan group of cases, which involve violations of the right to respect for private life and reputation under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, in one case, the right to freedom of expression under Article 10. The violations arose from the authorities’ failure to fulfil their positive obligations to protect the applicants and from the domestic courts’ failure to strike a fair balance between the competing rights to private life and freedom of expression.

The group comprises five cases concerning four applicants: Khadija Ismayilova, Khadija Ismayilova (No. 3), Abbasaliyeva, Mursaliyev, and Aytaj Ahmadova.

The submission recalls, in particular, that the leading Khadija Ismayilova case concerned the unauthorised entry into the investigative journalist’s home, the installation of hidden cameras, the filming and subsequent dissemination of intimate videos, and a threatening letter. The European Court found a plausible link between these intrusions and Ismayilova’s work as an investigative journalist critical of the Government, concluding that the actions were intended to silence her. The other cases concern defamatory publications, dissemination of private photographs, and failures by domestic authorities and courts to provide effective protection.

Key concerns raised in the submission

FVC informed the CM in its previous submission reports that the Government has de facto suspended the execution of judgments and decisions of the Court since January 2024, when the credentials of the Azerbaijani delegation to PACE were suspended. No individual measures in the form of just satisfaction and restitutio in integrum have been taken in cases where judgments have been delivered since January 2024. The just satisfaction in Mursaliyev and Aytaj Ahmadova has not been paid yet.

However, there is no indication that effective investigative measures have been taken to establish the identity of the person who sent the threatening letter, the owners and/or operators of the websites to which the videos were uploaded, or the individuals responsible for uploading them. This indicates a continuing lack of due diligence in examining crucial elements of the case and investigating possible connections between those involved.

An analysis of the judgments shows that the domestic courts do not carry out the balancing exercise required by the Court’s case-law. In particular, the six principal criteria identified by the Court are not examined by the domestic courts.

Failure of the prosecuting authorities to effectively investigate complaints is pervasive in many cases, including in cases which concern interferences into the private life of journalists and others. Although domestic legislation provides, in theory, for an effective remedy, the prosecuting authorities fail to provide an effective remedy to complainants where the allegations concern agents of the State, in particular members of law-enforcement agencies.

RECOMMENDATIONS

On individual measures:

Pay the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants in Mursaliyev and Aytaj Ahmadova;
Ensure that the status report of the Prosecutor General’s Office disclosing information concerning the private life of the applicant in Khadija Ismayilova, as well as the articles containing defamatory material about her in Khadija Ismayilova (No. 3), are removed from the relevant media outlets;
Take immediate measures to ensure that Ms Ismayilova can continue her work as a journalist without hindrance;
Regarding the reopened criminal investigations into the Khadija Ismayilova (No. 65286/13) and Aytaj Ahmadova cases, take prompt steps to investigate potential motives arising from the applicants’ journalistic work, properly questioning all witnesses and following up on all other leads (including those identified by the applicant in the first case).
Reopen the civil proceedings in respect of the Abbasaliyeva, Khadija Ismayilova (No.3), and Mursaliyev cases.

On general measures:

Take effective measures to ensure that the prosecuting authorities conduct prompt, thorough and effective investigations into credible allegations of interference with private life, especially when the allegations point to state agents, and provide reasoned decisions within the time-limits prescribed by law;
Take effective measures to bring the implementation of the Media Law fully in line with Council of Europe standards and to protect journalists from attacks, threats, and harassment linked to their work;
Ensure that inactions and omissions of the prosecuting authorities are examined under the judicial supervision procedure, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the Constitutional Court;
Ensure that domestic courts carry out an effective balancing exercise between the competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, apply the criteria established in the Court’s case-law, and follow the Convention-compliant aspects of the decision of the Supreme Court Plenum.

DH-DD(2026)1359

Given the outstanding individual measures, continuing deficiencies in investigations into violations of private life, the failure of domestic courts to effectively balance the rights protected under Articles 8 and 10, and persistent problems with judicial supervision of prosecutorial inaction, the communication calls for further measures to ensure the effective execution of the judgments in the Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan group of cases.

Click here to read the communication: Rule 9.2 – Communication on the Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan Group of Cases (65286/13)

See our previous submission on: Rule 9.2 – Communication on the Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan Group of Cases (65286/13)