Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world. It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments in the field.
Imagine a cell of four square meters, with a weathered, unkempt floor, a camp bed, a threadbare blanket, filth, vermin. These are the conditions of jailed journalist Sevinj Vagifgizi and many others in Azerbaijan. Reporters Without Borders reconstructed their solitary confinement in a container at Place de la République, Paris, earlier this year.
Last Friday, April 3, Azerbaijan’s Supreme Court upheld the nine-year sentence handed to Vagifgizi, Editor-in-Chief of Abzas Media, the country’s leading outlet investigating corruption. The Court also upheld the lengthy sentences of her colleagues—Ulvi Hasanli, Hafiz Babali, Nargiz Absalamova, Elnara Gasimova, and Mahammad Kekalov—and RFE/RL correspondent Farid Mehralizada, all found guilty of “acting as an organized group to commit multiple financial crimes.” The journalists intend to file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Azerbaijan’s patterns of silencing repeat: investigative journalism meets financial charges. CGFoE is featuring a recent ECtHR ruling in the case of journalist Khadija Ismayilova, recognized widely for her reporting on corruption in the high ranks of Azerbaijani officials and convicted of illegal entrepreneurship and tax evasion. Such retaliation for her journalistic work, the Court concluded, “was not only unlawful but also grossly arbitrary and incompatible with the principle of the rule of law.”
Azerbaijan imprisons 24 journalists today, joining the top ten of the world’s worst jailers of reporters like China and Myanmar. “[T]he Azerbaijani authorities have drawn red lines for journalists,” Vagifgizi wrote from prison. “Under no circumstances should the illegal actions of the president and his family be discussed. Rather than stopping at those red lines, we chose the red stripes of prison.” Her prison ID, Vagifgizi explains, has three red stripes—a mark of a high-risk prisoner.
Despite that, Vagifgizi and her colleagues continue to expose rampant corruption—these days, from inside their prison cells.
Solitary confinement cell of imprisoned Azerbaijani journalists, reconstructed by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) as part of an advocacy campaign. Photo credit: RSF
Sevinj Vagifgizi and other Azerbaijani journalists jailed on spurious charges in the Abzas Media case. Photo credit: RSF
European Court of Human Rights
Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 4)
Decision Date: January 27, 2026
The Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights held that Azerbaijan violated articles 6 §§ 1 and 3, 7, 10, and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case concerned the criminal prosecution of Khadija Ismayilova, an investigative journalist known for exposing corruption among high-ranking Azerbaijani officials, who had been charged with incitement to suicide, embezzlement, illegal entrepreneurship, tax evasion, and abuse of power following a complaint by a former colleague. Although she was acquitted of some charges, domestic courts ultimately convicted her of illegal entrepreneurship for conducting journalistic activities without accreditation and of tax evasion—sentencing her to imprisonment later reduced to a suspended sentence. The Court held that the domestic courts applied the relevant criminal provisions in an arbitrary and unforeseeable manner and failed to adequately address the applicant’s key arguments, thereby violating the principles of fair trial and legality under articles 6 and 7 of the ECHR. It further found that the criminal proceedings constituted an unlawful interference with Ismayilova’s freedom of expression and concluded that the prosecution had been used as a tool to silence and punish her for her investigative journalism, in violation of Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention.
Pešić v. Serbia
Decision Date: January 13, 2026
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Serbia violated an activist’s right to freedom of expression by failing to strike a fair balance between competing rights in a defamation case. Vesna Pešić had been found liable in civil proceedings for an article criticizing Serbia’s then-Minister of the Interior and she was ordered to pay damages. The Court concluded that the interference with her freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society, as the domestic courts did not adequately balance her right to free expression against the protection of reputation. It emphasized the heightened protection afforded to political speech and matters of public interest, finding that the sanction imposed was disproportionate and had a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
Sociedade Independente De Comunicação, S.A v. Portugal
Decision Date: January 13, 2026
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal (No. 2). The case concerned a Portuguese television company that broadcast footage of two private individuals involved in a heated exchange with a comedian during a stand-up comedy show without their express consent. Domestic courts ordered the company to pay damages to the individuals for violating their rights to privacy and image. The ECtHR held that the Portuguese authorities properly balanced the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 with the individuals’ right to respect for private life under Article 8. It concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was necessary in a democratic society, particularly because the broadcast concerned private individuals and lacked any clear public interest.
APR 16: Targeted: Free Expression After US Foreign Aid Cuts. ARTICLE 19 will launch a new report analyzing the impact of US foreign aid cuts on freedom of expression defense work. What does the weakened sector require to rebuild and persevere in the new reality? More broadly, what does it mean to defend human rights today and in the near future? Next Tuesday, April 16, 2026. Online. 8-9:30 AM (New York) / 1-2:30 PM (London). Register here.
● Georgia: Deportation of Azerbaijani Journalist Afgan Sadigov Bypasses ECtHR Ruling. The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project covers the deportation of exiled Azerbaijani journalist Afgan Sadigov, Editor-in-Chief of Azel TV, an independent YouTube news channel, from Georgia to Azerbaijan last week. Finding Sadigov guilty of insulting the police based on a Facebook post, a Georgian court handed him a fine and a three-year entry ban. A legal battle preceding the deportation—Sadigov was earlier arrested in Georgia at the request of Azerbaijan, where he faced extortion charges—reached the European Court of Human Rights, which granted an injunction to prevent his extradition.
● Switzerland: Azerbaijani Journalist Emin Huseynov in Danger. In another case of transnational repression, the International Press Institute (IPI) calls on Swiss authorities to ensure the safety of exiled Azerbaijani journalist Emin Huseynov, Founder of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety. Huseynov reported being followed in Geneva after he approached Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev with questions from independent media during the Munich Security Conference. IPI also cites repeated surveillance and a coordinated online hate campaign against the journalist. See CGFoE’s analysis of an earlier decision concerning Huseynov by the European Court of Human Rights.
● Azerbaijan: Fairness Report—Case of Journalist and Opposition Leader Tofig Yagublu. TrialWatch, a Clooney Foundation for Justice initiative, released a report on Azerbaijan’s prosecution of journalist and opposition activist Tofig Yagublu, highlighting violations of international fair trial rights, including the prohibition on politically motivated prosecution and arbitrary pre-trial detention. “His prosecution and conviction represent a serious departure from the rule of law,” the report states, noting the country’s escalating repression of voices that criticize the government. On April 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan upheld Yagublu’s conviction and nine-year prison sentence.
This Week in Protests
Protests against Israel’s newly enacted death penalty law, de facto applying exclusively to Palestinians, continue: last Thursday, April 2, demonstrations took place in Gaza; on Friday, Palestinians and Israelis protested in the West Bank (mid-last week, hundreds held sit-ins and marches in the West Bank, and thousands protested across Syria, with more solidarity actions happening globally). Anti-war protests continue worldwide: on Friday, hundreds demonstrated in front of the American Embassy in Sri Lanka; on Saturday, thousands marched for peace in Germany; on Sunday, UK police arrested seven at a peace encampment near the Lakenheath airbase on suspicion of their support for Palestine Action; and on Wednesday, demonstrators blocked traffic outside the Israeli embassy in London, decrying the deadly strikes on Lebanon.
Israel: March 2026—ongoing
On Saturday, April 4, at least 17 anti-war protesters were arrested during a violent crackdown on a rally of around a thousand people in Tel Aviv, Israel, with hundreds more protesting in Haifa and Jerusalem. The forceful dispersal, part of Israel’s ongoing crackdown on the right to protest, took place under wartime restrictions, despite a High Court ruling permitting the demonstration.
Demands: Organizers, including the Israeli-Palestinian grassroots group Standing Together, called for an end to the so-called forever war—“from Gaza to Lebanon to the West Bank to Iran”—that is harming both Israelis and the entire region.
Significance: As more people voice anti-war demands, the demonstrations reflect a growing public fatigue and disillusionment with Israel’s warmongering government.
State Response: On March 28, anti-war protests in around twenty locations were violently dispersed under emergency restrictions, with 22 arrests. On April 4, responding to a petition filed by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and activist Itamar Greenberg, Israel’s High Court of Justice ruled that the right to protest existed even in wartime and required that demonstrations of at least 600 people be allowed at Habima Square in Tel Aviv (and of at least 150 at other sites). Despite the Court’s interim order permitting the protests, Israeli police moved to disperse the April 4 rally, arresting at least 17 people, refusing to allow detainees to shelter underground during an air raid siren, and obstructing medical help to a protester who suffered cardiac arrest.
FoE Violations: The High Court noted an apparent disparity in enforcement: protest gatherings were being policed under Home Front Command restrictions, while other public assemblies were not. A further hearing in the case, addressing the broader question of protest rights during wartime, was postponed until April 10.
Interview with Lee C. Bollinger: A Response to Authoritarian Attacks on Universities, by Paul Hond. In his latest book, University: A Reckoning, former Columbia University President and CGFoE Founder Lee C. Bollinger argues that, at a perilous time for democracy, the university plays a vital role. “[W]e need to acknowledge that we would be stronger,” Bollinger told Columbia Magazine of universities, “if we had more collective resistance and more collective action.”
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.