4.  The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are given in the appendix. At the material time some of them held positions in opposition political parties or groups. 5.  Demonstrations were planned to be held on 31 July 2010, 2 April 2011 and 17 April 2011 in Baku. Prior to those assemblies, on 23 July 2010, 18 March 2011 and 11 April 2011 respectively, the organisers, consisting of several members of the opposition, gave notice to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”). 6.  The BCEA refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration of 31 July 2010 at the places indicated by the organisers and proposed three other locations on the outskirts of Baku, namely, a stadium in the Binagadi District, a square in the proximity of Zigh road in the Khatai District, and a yard of a driving school situated in the 20th residential area of the Sabail District. The BCEA noted that the squares in one of which the organisers proposed to hold the assembly were designated for public leisure and the other places proposed by the organisers were areas with heavy traffic. 7.  Similarly, the BCEA refused to authorise the holding of the demonstrations of 2 and 17 April 2011 at the places indicated by the organisers and in both cases proposed a different location on the outskirts of Baku, namely, the driving school yard mentioned above. The BCEA again noted that the places proposed by the organisers were areas with heavy traffic. 8.  Nevertheless, the organisers decided to hold the demonstrations in the centre of Baku. 9.  According to the applicants, the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants were demanding free and fair elections and democratic reforms in the country. Participants in the demonstration of 17 April 2011 were also protesting against impediments to freedom of assembly. 10.  Each applicant attended one of the demonstrations (see appendix), but shortly after they had begun, the police started to disperse them. 11.  According to the official records, all the applicants were arrested during the dispersal operations and were taken to various police stations. 12.  According to the applicant in application no. 67351/11, he was arrested by people in plain clothes. 13.  The applicants were questioned at the respective police stations. 14.  On the day of the applicants’ arrests, “administrative offence reports” (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) were issued in respect of them. The reports stated that by deliberately failing to comply with lawful police orders, the applicants had committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). 15.  Some of the applicants refused to sign the respective administrative offence reports. 16.  According to most of the applicants, they were never served with copies of the administrative offence reports or with other documents in their case files (applications nos. 57737/11, 67351/11, 67977/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11). According to the applicant in application no. 57737/11, he obtained a copy of the administrative offence report several months after the administrative proceedings against him had ended. 17.  None of the applicants was given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while in police custody. 18.  Each applicant was brought before a first-instance court on the day of the arrest or the following day. 19.  According to most of the applicants, the hearing before the court in each case was very brief. In some of the cases members of the public were not allowed to attend, even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public. 20.  According to all the applicants, they were not given an opportunity to hire lawyers of their own choice. State-funded lawyers were appointed to represent most of the applicants. 21.  The applicants in applications nos. 74609/10 and 57737/11 were not assisted by lawyers. The records of the respective court hearings show that those applicants refused the assistance of a State-funded lawyer and decided to defend themselves in person. 22.  The record of the hearing in the case of the applicant in application no. 69411/11 shows that in his oral submissions, the State-funded lawyer briefly asked the court to be merciful and adopt a lenient decision. In the cases of the applicants in applications nos. 67351/11 and 67977/11, the State-funded lawyers did not make any oral or written submissions. Similarly, none of the material submitted to the Court in application no. 69421/11 contains any record showing that the State-funded lawyer, Ms R.N., made any oral or written submissions before the first-instance court. 23.  The only witnesses questioned during the respective court hearings were the police officers who, according to the official records, had arrested the applicants. In the case of the applicant in application no. 67977/11, a police officer who had issued the administrative offence report was also questioned as a witness. All those police officers testified that the applicants had staged unauthorised demonstrations. 24.  In application no. 67351/11 the court did not question any witnesses. 25.  The respective first-instance courts found that the applicants had failed to stop participating in unauthorised demonstrations. The courts convicted the applicants under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced them to periods of “administrative” detention ranging from seven to fifteen days (see Appendix). 26.  On various dates the applicants lodged appeals before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that their convictions were in violation of their rights because the demonstrations in which they had participated or attempted to participate had been peaceful. The applicants also complained that their arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the respective first-instance courts had not been fair. They asked the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance courts’ decisions in their respective cases. 27.  Most of the applicants were assisted before the Baku Court of Appeal by lawyers of their own choice. The applicant in application no. 57737/11 was not represented by a lawyer. 28.  On various dates the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the decisions of the respective first-instance courts (see appendix). 29.  According to the applicant in application no. 57737/11, on 28 February 2011, following his complaints about the authorities’ failure to serve him with the relevant documents, the Sabail District Court sent him a copy of the administrative offence report issued in respect of him, the first‑instance court’s decision of 31 July 2010 and the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 20 August 2010. 30.  According to the applicant in application no. 69411/11, he received the decision of the Court of Appeal of 13 April 2011 on 15 October 2011, after having complained about the court’s failure to serve him with that decision.