4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Baku. At the material time he was a member of an opposition party – the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan. 5.  The applicant participated or attempted to participate in demonstrations organised by the opposition on 17 November 2012 and 10 March 2013 in Baku. 6.  On 12 November 2012, the organisers gave notice to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), about the demonstration of 17 November 2012. It appears that no proper prior notice was given to the BCEA by the organisers of the demonstration of 10 March 2013. Information about that assembly was disseminated through Facebook or the press. 7.  The BCEA refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration of 17 November 2012, stating in general terms that that assembly would not be in accordance with the Law on Freedom of Assembly. The BCEA further stated 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.  Nevertheless, the organisers decided to hold the demonstrations in the centre of Baku. 9.  According to the applicant, the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants of the demonstration of 17 November 2012 were demanding democratic reforms in the country and protesting against impediments to freedom of assembly. The participants of the demonstration of 10 March 2013 were protesting about the deaths of numerous soldiers in the army. 10.  The applicant attended both demonstrations, but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse them. In both cases the applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and was taken to a police station, where he was questioned. According to the applicant, in the first case he was arrested by people in plain clothes. 11.  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 from 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. 12.  In the first case the applicant refused to sign the administrative‑offence report. 13.  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 the arrest or while in police custody. 14.  In the second case, according to a document drawn up by a police officer and a record dated 10 March 2013, a State-funded lawyer (Mr T.A.) was instructed to assist the applicant. 15.  In the first case the applicant was brought before the Sabail District Court on 17 November 2012, the day of his arrest. In the second case he was kept in police custody overnight and brought before the Sabail District Court on 11 March 2013, the day after 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 neither case was he given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice. 18.  At the court hearing in both cases a State-funded lawyer was appointed to assist the applicant. 19.  None of the material submitted to the Court contains any record showing that in the first case the State-funded lawyer, Mr Z.A., made any oral or written submissions before the first-instance court. According to the record of the court hearing in the second case, in his oral submissions the State-funded lawyer, Mr T.A., stated in general terms that the applicant was not guilty. 20.  At the hearing in the first case the court did not question any witnesses. The court in the second case questioned three police officers and a witness on the applicant’s behalf, Mr M.M. The police officers testified that they had arrested the applicant because he had staged an unauthorised demonstration. Mr M.M. testified that he and the applicant had attempted to participate in the demonstration but had been arrested even before they had entered the area where the assembly had been held. 21.  By a decision of 17 November 2012 the first-instance court in the first case convicted the applicant under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to seven days’ “administrative” detention. By a decision of 11 March 2013 the court in the second case convicted the applicant under Article 298.2 of the CAO and sentenced him to six days’ “administrative” detention. 22.  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 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 his appeals the applicant also complained that the respective first‑instance courts had failed to take into consideration the fact that he had a second-degree disability and, under the law, he should not have been sentenced to administrative detention. 24.  In the first case the applicant was assisted before the Baku Court of Appeal by a lawyer of his own choice. In the second case he was not represented by a lawyer. 25.  In the first case the Baku Court of Appeal found that the applicant had failed to stop participating in an unauthorised demonstration. In the second case the Court of Appeal found that the applicant had participated in a demonstration which had not been organised in accordance with the law. 26.  In both cases, on 26 November 2012 and 27 March 2013 respectively, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.