4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Baku. At the material time he was deputy chairman of the Youth Committee of an opposition party, Musavat. 5.  Demonstrations were planned to be held on 2 April 2011 and 20 October 2012 in Baku. Prior to the assemblies, on 18 March 2011 and 15 October 2012 respectively the organisers, members of the opposition, gave notice to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”). 6.  The BCEA refused to authorise the demonstrations at the places indicated by the organisers and proposed a different location on the outskirts of Baku – the yard of a driving school situated in the 20th habitable area of the Sabail District. 7.  The organisers nevertheless decided to hold the demonstrations in the centre of Baku. 8.  According to the applicant, 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. 9.  The applicant attended both demonstrations, but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse those who had gathered. In both cases the applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and was taken to a police station, where he was questioned. According to him, at the second demonstration he was arrested by people in plain clothes. 10.  In both cases on the day of the applicant’s arrest, an administrative offence report (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) was issued on him. The reports stated that by deliberately failing to comply with a lawful order of the police, the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). 11.  In the first case the applicant refused to sign the administrative offence report. 12.  According to the applicant, he has never been served with copies of the administrative offence reports or with other documents from his case files. In both cases he was not given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while he was in police custody. 13.  On the day of his arrest, namely 2 April 2011 in the first case and 20 October 2012 in the second case, the applicant was brought before a first-instance court, the Nasimi District Court and the Binagadi District Court respectively. 14.  According to him, the hearing before the court in both cases was very brief. Members of the public, including human rights defenders and journalists, were not allowed inside the courtroom, even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public. 15.  According to the applicant, in both cases he was not given an opportunity to appoint a lawyer of his own choosing. 16.  At the hearing in the first case the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. According to documents submitted by the Government, he refused the assistance of a State-funded lawyer and decided to defend himself in person. 17.  At the hearing in the second case a State-funded lawyer was invited to assist the applicant. 18.  According to the transcript of the court hearing in the second case, in his oral submissions the State-funded lawyer briefly asked the court to impose on the applicant a light punishment in view of his young age. 19.  The only witness questioned during the court hearing in the first case was a police officer who, according to official records, had arrested the applicant. He testified that the applicant had staged an unauthorised demonstration. At the hearing in the second case the court did not question any witnesses. 20.  In both cases the first-instance court found that the applicant had failed to stop participating in an unauthorised demonstration. 21.  By decisions of 2 April 2011 and 20 October 2012, the courts convicted the applicant under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to seven and ten days’ administrative detention respectively. 22.  On unspecified dates the applicant lodged appeals with the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that his convictions were in violation of his rights because the demonstrations in which he had participated or attempted to participate had been peaceful. The applicant also complained that his arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the respective first-instance courts had not been fair. 23.  In both cases the applicant was represented before the Baku Court of Appeal by a lawyer of his own choosing. 24.  On 11 April 2011 and 29 October 2012 respectively, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.