5.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1994 respectively and live in Baku. At the material time the first applicant was a member of one of the main opposition parties in the country, the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan, and the second applicant was a member of an opposition group, Nida. 6.  The applicants participated in an assembly on 6 May 2014. According to the applicants, they were among people who gathered near the Baku Assize Court to support members of Nida (an opposition group), who were being tried on that day. The courtroom was full, and therefore some people gathered outside the court to wait for the outcome of the proceedings. When the court announced its judgment, those who had gathered outside began to protest against the judgment, since they considered it unfair. The protest was brief, spontaneous and peaceful. Immediately after the protesters started chanting slogans, police officers and people in plain clothes began to forcibly disperse the demonstration. 7.  The applicants were arrested during the dispersal operation and were taken to a police station, where they were kept overnight. 8.  The applicants were questioned at the police station. 9.  On the day of the applicants’ arrest, administrative-offence reports on them (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) were issued, which stated that they had committed an administrative offence under Article 298.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”): participation in a public assembly organised not in accordance with the law. 10.  According to the applicants, they were never served with copies of the administrative-offence reports or other documents from their case files. They were not given access to a lawyer either after their arrest or while they were in police custody. 11.  According to a police officer’s decision and an order dated 6 May 2014, a State-funded lawyer (Mr O.A.) was invited to defend the first applicant. Similarly, according to a police officer’s decision and an order dated 6 May 2014, a State-funded lawyer (Mr A.B.) was invited to defend the second applicant. 12.  The applicants were brought before the Nasimi District Court on the day following their arrest. 13.  According to the applicants, the hearing before the first-instance court was very brief in both cases. 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. 14.  According to the applicants, they were not given an opportunity to appoint lawyers of their own choosing. 15.  A State-funded lawyer was invited to defend the first applicant. It was the same lawyer, Mr O.A., who had been invited to defend her in accordance with the above-mentioned police officer’s decision of 6 May 2014. 16.  The second applicant was not represented by a lawyer. According to the transcript of the hearing in his case, he refused the assistance of the State-funded lawyer and decided to defend himself in person. 17.  According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the first applicant, the State-funded lawyer did not make any oral or written submissions. 18.  The only witnesses questioned during the hearing concerning the first applicant were police officers who, according to official records, had arrested her or issued the administrative-offence report on her. They testified that the applicant had staged an unauthorised protest. With respect to the second applicant, the court did not question any witness. 19.  According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the first applicant, she stated that she had participated in the protest of 6 May 2014 and had rightfully used “improper language” in the course of the protest. 20.  According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the second applicant, he stated that he had simply protested against an unfair judgment against the Nida members, and had not committed any unlawful action. 21.  In both cases the Nasimi District Court found that the applicants had participated in an unauthorised demonstration. The court convicted the applicants under Article 298.2 of the CAO, and sentenced them to a period of administrative detention of thirty and twenty days respectively. 22.  On unspecified dates the applicants lodged appeals with the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that their convictions had been in violation of their rights, because the protest in which they had participated had been spontaneous and peaceful. The applicants also complained that their arrests had been unlawful, and that the hearings before the first-instance court had not been fair. They asked the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first‑instance court’s decisions in their respective cases. 23.  The first applicant was assisted by a lawyer of her own choosing before the Baku Court of Appeal. The second applicant was not represented by a lawyer. 24.  On 16 and 22 May 2014 respectively the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld the decisions of the first‑instance court.