4.  The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix. At the material time many of them were members of opposition political parties or groups. 5.  Demonstrations were planned to be held on 20 October and 17 November 2012 in Baku. Prior to the assemblies, on 15 October and 12 November 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 demonstration of 20 October 2012 at the place indicated by the organisers and proposed another location on the outskirts of Baku  the yard of a driving school situated in the 20th habitable area of the Sabail District. 7.  The BCEA also refused to authorise the demonstration of 17 November 2012. It noted in general terms that that assembly would not be in accordance with the Law on Freedom of Assembly. The BCEA further noted that the square where the organisers proposed to hold the assembly was a designated public leisure area and that the assembly itself would be impractical. 8.  The organisers nevertheless decided to hold the demonstrations as planned. 9.  According to the applicants, the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants were demanding democratic reforms in the country and protesting against impediments on freedom of assembly. 10.  Each applicant attended one of the two demonstrations (see Appendix), but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse those who had gathered. All applicants were arrested during the dispersal operations and were taken to various police stations. According to most of the applicants, they were arrested by people in plain clothes. 11.  The applicants were questioned at the respective police stations. 12.  On the day of each applicant’s arrest administrative offence reports (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) were issued on them, which stated that by deliberately failing to comply with a lawful order of the police, the applicants had committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). The applicants in application nos. 8204/13, 8468/13, 31201/13 and 51930/13 were also charged under Article 298 of the CAO (violation of the rules on holding public assemblies). 13.  Some of the applicants refused to sign the administrative offence reports. 14.  According to the applicants, they were never served with copies of the administrative offence reports or with other documents from their case files. They were not given access to a lawyer after their arrest or while they were in police custody. 15.  Each applicant was brought before a first-instance court on the day of their arrest. 16.  According to most of them, the hearing before the court in each case was very brief. Members of the public were not allowed inside the courtroom, even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public. 17.  According to all applicants, they were not given an opportunity to appoint lawyers of their own choosing. State-funded lawyers were invited to represent most of them. The applicants in application nos. 8204/13, 31201/13 and 51930/13 were not represented by a lawyer. According to the transcripts of the respective court hearings, the applicants in application nos. 8204/13 and 51930/13 refused the assistance of a State-funded lawyer and decided to defend themselves in person. 18.  The applicants stated in the respective courts that they had participated or attempted to participate in the demonstrations of 20 October 2012 or 17 October 2012, exercising their right to freedom of assembly and/or that they were not guilty of failing to comply with a lawful order of the police. 19.  According to the transcripts of the hearings, in their oral submissions the State-funded lawyers stated in general terms that the applicants were not guilty or briefly asked the respective courts to adopt a fair decision. With respect to the applicants in application nos. 8468/13, 17569/13 and 45211/13 the State-funded lawyers did not make any oral or written submissions. 20.  The only witnesses questioned during the respective court hearings were police officers who, according to official records, had arrested the applicants or issued administrative offence reports on them. They testified that the applicants had staged unauthorised demonstrations and/or had been shouting loudly on the street. 21.  In application nos. 8204/13, 8468/13, 14226/13, 17569/13, 31201/13, 45211/13 and 51930/13 the respective courts did not question any witnesses. 22.  In most of the cases the respective first-instance courts found that the applicants had failed to stop participating in an unauthorised demonstration. With respect to the applicant in application no. 5231/13, the first-instance court found that he had attempted “to make noise by shouting” on a street. With respect to the applicant in application no. 17575/13, the first-instance court stated in general terms that he had deliberately failed to comply with a lawful order of the police. 23.  The courts convicted the applicants under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced them to a period of administrative detention, varying from five to thirteen days (see Appendix). The applicant in application no. 8468/13 was additionally convicted under Article 298 of the CAO. 24.  On various dates the applicants lodged appeals with 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. 25.  The applicants were represented before the Baku Court of Appeal by lawyers of their own choosing. 26.  On various dates the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld the decisions of the respective first-instance courts (see Appendix).