5.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Baku. 6.  The opposition planned to hold demonstrations on 12 and 26 January 2013 in Baku. 7.  No prior notice was given to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), by the organisers of the demonstrations. Information about the demonstrations was disseminated through Facebook or the press. 8.  According to the applicant, the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants in the demonstration of 12 January 2013 were drawing the public’s attention to the deaths of soldiers in the army. The participants in the demonstration of 26 January 2013 were condemning the use of force by the police against those who had participated in previous demonstrations. 9.  The applicant attended both demonstrations, but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse the assemblies. In both cases the applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and was taken to a police station, where he was questioned. 10.  In both cases, on the day of applicant’s arrest an “administrative-offence report” (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) was issued in respect of him. The reports stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 298.2 (participation in a public assembly that had not been organised in accordance with the law) of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). 11.  According to the applicant, he was never served with copies of the administrative-offence reports or with other documents in his case files. In neither case was he given access to a lawyer after his arrest or while in police custody. 12.  A statement (ərizə) written by the applicant on 12 January 2013 at the police station and submitted to the Court by the Government showed that in the first case, the applicant had declared that he would defend himself in person. 13.  A statement written by the applicant on 26 January 2013 at the police station and submitted to the Court by the Government showed that in the second case the applicant had declared that he did “not need a lawyer because of his financial [situation]”. 14.  In the first case, after having been held for a few hours in police custody, the applicant was released, subject to an undertaking to reappear at the police station on 14 January 2013. 15.  In the first case, the applicant was brought before the Nasimi District Court on 14 January 2013, the day he reappeared at the police station. In the second case he was brought before the Nasimi District Court on 26 January 2013, the day of his arrest. 16.  According to the applicant, the hearing before the court in both cases was very brief. 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. 17.  According to the applicant, in both cases he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice. 18.  A statement signed by the applicant on 14 January 2013 and submitted to the Court by the Government showed that in the first case, the applicant had declared that he did not need legal assistance and would defend himself in person. 19.  At the court hearing in the second case, a State-funded lawyer was appointed to assist the applicant. 20.  The record of the court hearing in the second case shows that in his oral submissions, the State-funded lawyer briefly stated that there had been elements of the administrative offence in the applicant’s actions, and asked the court to adopt a fair decision. 21.  In both cases, the court questioned police officers who had participated in the dispersal operations and police officers who had prepared the administrative-offence reports against the applicant. The police officers testified that the applicant had staged an unauthorised demonstration. 22.  In both cases the first-instance court found that the applicant had participated in an unauthorised demonstration. 23.  In both cases, by decisions of 14 and 26 January 2013 respectively, the first-instance court convicted the applicant under Article 298.2 of the CAO. The court sentenced him to fines of 500 manats (AZN) and AZN 400 respectively. 24.  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 demonstrations in which he had participated had been peaceful. He also complained that his arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the respective first-instance courts had not been fair. 25.  In the first case, the applicant was not represented before the Baku Court of Appeal by a lawyer. At the appellate court hearing in the second case the applicant was represented by the same lawyer who had represented him before the first-instance court. 26.  In both cases, on 25 January and 6 February 2013 respectively, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.