4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Baku. At the material time he was a member of an opposition party, Musavat. 5.  The applicant attempted to participate in a demonstration organised by the opposition on 20 October 2012. Prior to that assembly, on 15 October 2012, the organisers gave notice to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”). The BCEA refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration at the place indicated by the organisers and proposed a different location on the outskirts of Baku. Nevertheless, the organisers decided to hold the demonstration as planned. 6.  According to the applicant, the demonstration was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants were demanding democratic reforms in the country. 7.  The applicant had intended to attend the demonstration. He and a few others attempted to march from the headquarters of the Musavat party to the place where the assembly was being held. However, shortly after that attempt he was arrested and taken to a police station. According to the applicant, he was arrested by people in plain clothes. 8.  On 6 May 2014 the applicant also participated in another assembly, which took place near the Baku Court of Serious Crimes in support of members of an opposition group, Nida, who were being tried on that day. The courtroom was full, so some people were waiting outside the court for the outcome of the proceedings. When the court announced its judgment, those who had gathered outside began to protest against the judgment, which they considered unfair. The protest was brief, spontaneous and peaceful. As soon as the protesters started chanting slogans, police officers and people in plain clothes began to forcibly disperse the assembly. The applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and taken to a police station, where he was kept overnight. 9.  In both cases on the day of the applicant’s arrest, an “administrative‑offence report” (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) was issued in respect of him. In the first case the report 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”). In the second case the applicant was charged with an administrative offence under Article 298.2 (participation in a public assembly that had not been organised in accordance with the law) of the CAO. 10.  According to the applicant, he was never served with copies of the administrative-offence reports or with other documents in his case files. In both cases he was not given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while in police custody. 11.  In the second case, according to a document drawn up by a police officer and an order dated 6 May 2014, a State-funded lawyer (Mr S.A.) was instructed to assist the applicant. 12.  In the first case the applicant was brought before the Binagadi District Court on 20 October 2012, the day of his arrest. In the second case he was brought before the Nasimi District Court on 7 May 2014, the day following his arrest. 13.  According to the applicant, the hearing before the court in both cases was very brief. Members of the public, including human rights defenders and journalists, were not allowed to attend, even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public. 14.  According to the applicant, in neither case was he given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice. 15.  In both cases State-funded lawyers were appointed to assist the applicant. In the second case it was the same lawyer, Mr S.A., who had been instructed to assist the applicant in accordance with the above-mentioned document of 6 May 2014 drawn up by a police officer. 16.  According to the records of the court hearings in both cases, in their oral submissions the State-funded lawyers briefly stated that the applicant was not guilty and asked the respective court to discontinue the case. 17.  In both cases the only witnesses questioned during the court hearing were police officers who, according to the official records, had arrested the applicant or prepared an administrative-offence report on him. They testified that the applicant had staged an unauthorised protest. 18.  In both cases the first-instance court found that the applicant had failed to stop participating in an unauthorised protest. 19.  By a decision of 20 October 2012 the first-instance court in the first case convicted the applicant under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to ten days’ “administrative” detention.  By a decision of 7 May 2014 the court in the second case convicted the applicant under Article 298.2 of the CAO and sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention. 20.  On unspecified dates the applicant lodged appeals before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that his convictions were in violation of his rights because the assemblies in which he had participated or attempted to participate had been peaceful (in addition, in the second case the applicant argued that the assembly had been spontaneous). The applicant also complained that his arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the respective first-instance courts had not been fair. 21.  In both cases the applicant was assisted before the Baku Court of Appeal by a lawyer of his own choice. 22.  In both cases, on 29 October 2012 and 16 May 2014 respectively, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.