A Paper Shield? ComparativeAnalysis of Türkiye, Germany,and Azerbaijan’s Legislationin Protective Measures

1.     Narrow Scope of Restraining Orders

As discussed above, Azerbaijani law limits restraining orders to close relatives (only if living together) and partners (current or former spouses or cohabitants), leaving victims of stalking and harassment by outsiders undefended. To see the problem closer, Turkish Regulation 6284 Article 3(ş) [9] defines stalking comprehensively based on the victim’s fear and helplessness, regardless of family tie or relationship. This expansive definition focuses on behavior and psychological impact, not perpetrator status, revealing the gap in Azerbaijani law that focuses only on “domestic relationships”.

Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that 5.2 million people in England and Wales experienced stalking, sexual assault, or domestic abuse in one year, with women at 12.8% and men at 8.4% [3]. These crimes exist everywhere, but Azerbaijan takes no preventive steps before violence occurs.

Azerbaijani Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence Article 4.0.1 requires past or present cohabitation for restraining orders against relatives [7]. This excludes abusive in-laws who never lived with the victim. It also excludes dating or engaged couples who do not live together. In contrast, Istanbul Convention Article 3 defines domestic violence as occurring between spouses or partners “whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim” [7].

The current law is outdated and restrictive. It is proposed to add a comprehensive stalking definition like Türkiye and amend Article 1.0.1 to include “victims of non-domestic stalking, harassment, or other violent acts”. Finally, to address violations of its positive obligation under ECHR Articles 3 and 8, Azerbaijan should sign and ratify the Istanbul Convention.

2.     Property Rights of The Perpetrator Over the Victim’s Security

In Azerbaijan’s practice, no court or executive power has the right to remove the perpetrator from the shared dwelling with the victim. The Azerbaijani Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence states that the victim shall be provided with temporary shelter at the relief center (Article 7.0.1) [7]. The first problem is that the shelter is temporary and does not offer a long-term solution, as the victim eventually goes back to the shared dwelling of the perpetrator where she will be at risk of further violence. The other problem is that the law requires removing the victim from the house instead of the person who committed the violence. This causes instability, making her seek temporary shelter, return home, face terror, and request aid again.

The Council of Europe recommends one shelter bed for every 10,000 residents [4]. Azerbaijan has over 10 million people, so it should have roughly 1000 shelter spaces. However, according to official data, there are only 6 shelters in the country. This disparity shows that domestic violence programs are severely underfunded. To solve this, Azerbaijan should achieve 1000 shelter beds within five years through direct government funding and regional distribution (one shelter per economic region).

In the European Court of Human Rights decision Levchuk v. Ukraine (no. 17496/19), the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Ms. Levchuk was a disabled woman who, after divorce, had to continue living with her violent ex-husband because she had nowhere else to go. The local courts dismissed her request to remove him from the dwelling, finding insufficient grounds for such a “radical measure”. The ECtHR ruled that it is the state’s positive obligation to provide effective protection against domestic violence. The state officials failed to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the risk of future violence and prioritized the husband’s property rights over the victim’s safety [6]. This decision showed a huge gap in Ukrainian law, which lacked specific regulation on evicting offenders from shared dwellings they co-own.

The exact same gap exists in Azerbaijani law today. No legal measure allows removal of the offender from the shared residence if he has a property interest or the property is jointly owned. Victims must flee their own house while the abuser stays undisturbed, as Azerbaijani law gives the perpetrator’s property rights priority over the victim’s safety. As proven in Levchuk v. Ukraine, this legislative gap violates Azerbaijan’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the ECHR.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. Under this article, the state has a positive obligation to take necessary steps to ensure an individual’s rights are protected from violation by other individuals [5]. This positive obligation is most critical for domestic violence cases.

To ensure Azerbaijan does not violate ECHR Article 8 and offers effective protection for violence victims, two steps are necessary. First, amend the Azerbaijani Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence to allow courts to remove the offender from the shared dwelling instead of removing the victim. Second, ratify the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention to provide comprehensive protection and align local laws with international standards.

3.      Restraining Orders for a Limited Period Only – Revictimization

Under Azerbaijani Law Articles 11 and 12, short-term restraining orders last only 60 days and long-term orders only 180 days [7]. This forces victims to reapply, re-live trauma, and navigate complex procedures repeatedly, contradicting the purpose of lasting protection.

Worse, Article 12.1 requires the perpetrator to violate a short-term order before a long-term order can be issued. This creates a dangerous “testing period” where victims must endure further harassment or violence to qualify for longer protection. This provision violates the state’s positive obligation under ECHR Articles 2, 3, and 8 to provide immediate and effective protection.

In Opuz v. Türkiye, the ECtHR found that state inaction and failure to issue protective injunctions created impunity for domestic violence, violating Articles 2, 3, and 14 [7]. The same problem exists in Azerbaijan, where protection automatically expires after 180 days regardless of continuing risk. Requiring victims to return to court every six months to prove ongoing danger creates harmful state passivity.

In contrast, India’s PWDVA Section 25(1) keeps protection orders in force until the victim applies for discharge, with no fixed expiry date [12]. This respects victim safety and prevents arbitrary gaps in protection.

4.     The Dangerous Emphasis on Family Reconciliation

In Articles 7.0.4 and 8.0.8 of Azerbaijani Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence, the phrase “normalizing the relations of the parties” remains problematic. It is ambiguous and can pressure victims to “fix” the relationship, drop charges, or forgive the abuser. According to lawyer Sevinj Aliyeva, all severe violence – including murder – begins with smaller acts like a push or a threat. If not prevented early, it grows [10].

Article 7.0.4 requires authorities to aid in normalizing relations during investigation. This directly contradicts the Istanbul Convention. In practice, authorities act as mediators trying to reconcile the parties rather than protect the victim. International experts confirm this has been interpreted as mandatory mediation, treating violence as a “family conflict” rather than a crime.

Article 48 of the Istanbul Convention explicitly prohibits mandatory mediation or conciliation in domestic violence cases. Normalization ignores the power imbalance between abuser and victim.

The BBC case of Sevinj Maharramova, a 23-year-old murdered by her husband in 2021 after multiple complaints, shows this defect [1]. Women murders are gradual – starting small, then escalating. The normalization provision prioritizes family unity over life and safety, violating ECHR Articles 2, 3, and 8.

According to lawyer Sevinj Aliyeva, “normalizing relations” also applies to child contact, forcing victims to allow children to interact with documented abusers, contradicting the Istanbul Convention’s protective framework [10].

To solve this, Azerbaijan should remove Article 7.0.4, prohibit any attempt to reconcile parties, and ratify and implement the Istanbul Convention in full.

5.     Conclusion and Recommendations

This blog has examined systematic flaws in Azerbaijani legislation on Prevention of Domestic Violence and shown how these defects violate the state’s positive obligation under ECHR Articles 3 and 8. Using comparative analysis with ECHR, Turkish, Indian, German law and the Istanbul Convention, several critical gaps were identified.

Consequently, this blog recommends that it would be better if Azerbaijan: removes the 180-day cap on restraining orders; abolishes the “normalize relations” mandate; allows courts to remove the perpetrator from the shared dwelling regardless of property rights; and expands protection orders to include stalking and harassment by any person, regardless of domestic relationship or cohabitation, in line with Article 34 of the Istanbul Convention and the German Protection Against Violence Act.