Azerbaijani analysts criticized amendments to information legislation

Ahead of the winter session of the Parliament The human rights campaign "End Repression in Azerbaijan" of the Assembly of the Council of Europe called on Council of Europe structures to launch a "joint response procedure" against Baku, stating that Azerbaijan is failing to comply with its human rights obligations to the organization.

Amendments to the Law "On Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information" entered into force in Azerbaijan. They were adopted by parliament on December 30, 2025, and signed by the president on January 15. According to the amendments, Article 13-2.3.6-1 of the law establishes liability for disseminating online content that contains "insults to public morality and clear disrespect for society," as well as "obscene expressions, gestures, or the display of body parts in a manner inappropriate for morality and national and spiritual values."

At the same time, amendments were made to the Code of Administrative Offenses, defining liability for these actions as a fine of 500 to 1,000 manat. If, given the circumstances of the case and the personality of the offender, the application of these measures is deemed "insufficient," then administrative arrest for up to 30 days may follow. Repeat offenses within one year are punishable by a fine of 1,000 to 2,000 manat or administrative arrest for one to two months.

According to Zahid Oruj, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the National Assembly of Azerbaijan, the adoption of these legislative amendments is motivated by concern for public morality and the protection of family values. "Sometimes permissiveness and a climate of impunity turn social media into an anti-family and anti-moral platform," musavat.com quotes Oruj as saying.

What are national and spiritual values, and how are they defined?

Natig Jafarli, head of the political committee of the Republican Alternative party and co-founder of the Respublika Research Center, believes the new law is flawed. In his view, the law does not define specific criteria for the illegality of an act or specify a list of actions subject to liability.

In his opinion, the interpretation of the law in this case is left to the discretion of law enforcement and oversight agencies. "How will it be determined whether any content contradicts national and spiritual values? "Generally speaking, what are national and spiritual values, how are they defined, and where can I find a list of these values? There is no such definition in the legal framework. Therefore, law enforcement will rely on their own understanding of national and spiritual values, their own worldview, and this opens the door to subjective interpretations," Jafarli told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

Also, in his opinion, the definition of "disrespect for society" is unclear. "Will an official disseminating false information be considered disrespect for society? What is an 'immoral act', and is there a definition? What is public morality, and who defines it?" "All these questions remain open," Jafarli noted.

The legislative initiative "arms" executive bodies to combat government critics

Another analyst pointed out the vagueness of the legislative amendments, which opens the door to broad interpretations of these provisions.

"Without clarity of the criteria for actions that entail liability, the legal provision will be applied subjectively. It is obvious that the legislative initiative "arms" executive bodies to combat government critics online. Any sarcastic expression, irony, or satire can be considered a violation of the law. Following the adoption of the law, arrests have already followed in Azerbaijan for comments on social media. Activist Konul Akhmedova and two PFPA activists were arrested," said the source, who did not wish to be named.

The "Caucasian Knot" reported that on January 22, the Khazar District Court in Bakuarrested activist Kenul Akhmedova for 20 days under the article on disseminating prohibited information on social media. The administrative case for disseminating prohibited information online was opened due to comments the activist left under publications by SanjakMedia and Meydan TV.