3 Chilling Facts About the Threats Facing an Imprisoned Azerbaijani Journalist

When we think of the dangers journalists face, we often picture threats in the field—covering conflicts, investigating corruption, or confronting powerful figures. But for many, the gravest danger begins not on the streets, but after the prison gates close behind them. The case of Farid Ismayilov, an Azerbaijani journalist imprisoned in connection with the "Toplum TV case," is a stark reminder of this reality. From within a Baku detention center, İsmayılov has reported a series of escalating threats to his life, raising urgent questions about his safety and the state's responsibility to protect him.

1. A Targeted Campaign of Escalating Prison Threats

During a court hearing on September 29, 2025, Farid Ismayilov detailed an alarming sequence of events that he believes constitutes a deliberate campaign against him.

The first incident occurred on September 23. As İsmayılov was being escorted to the medical unit, an inmate in a neighboring cell threw a cup at him while explicitly threatening to kill him. The attack was only thwarted because Penitentiary Service staff stepped in front of İsmayılov to block it.

The next day, on September 24, a different inmate attempted to throw hot water at the journalist. Once again, prison staff intervened to prevent the assault, but the pattern of targeted aggression was clear.

The situation culminated in a deeply disturbing incident on September 25. An inmate—reportedly becoming aggressive because he was unable to harm İsmayılov—began to self-harm with a sharp object. While doing so, he hurled insults at İsmayılov and again threatened to hurt him, turning his frustrated violence into a terrifying psychological weapon.

İsmayılov believes these are not random acts but part of an orchestrated provocation. As he stated in court:

2. Official Inaction in the Face of Urgent Pleas

The physical threats are compounded by a deliberate pattern of institutional failure at every level, demonstrating a shocking neglect of the state's duty to protect those in its custody.

First, despite İsmayılov's insistence, the cup-throwing and death threat incident on September 23 was never officially documented by prison officials, effectively erasing a key piece of evidence from the record.

Second, following the series of threats, İsmayılov's lawyer submitted a formal request to have the threatening inmate's cell changed. That urgent request has gone unanswered.

Third, his mother, Məlahət İsmayılova, contacted the Ministry of Justice's hotline to report the threats against her son's life. She was told her complaint would only be reviewed within 30 working days—a bureaucratic eternity for a mother who fears for her son's life with each passing hour.

His mother’s fear is palpable in her public statement:

3. An International Watchdog Sounds the Alarm

The threats against Farid Ismayilov have not gone unnoticed by the international community. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), a leading press freedom organization, has publicly voiced its serious concern over the death threats.

The CPJ issued two clear demands to the Azerbaijani authorities:

1. Ensure the immediate safety of Farid Ismayilov while he is in state custody.

2. Release İsmayılov and the more than 25 other journalists the organization states are unjustly imprisoned in the country.

İsmayılov's arrest is part of the wider "Toplum TV case," which has seen ten individuals face prosecution. He and the others were initially charged with smuggling, but the charges were later escalated. All the accused deny the allegations, maintaining that their arrests are politically motivated and a direct result of their professional journalistic activities.

Conclusion: A Question of Responsibility

The chilling events reported by Farid Ismayilov from his prison cell highlight a dual threat: the immediate physical danger posed by other inmates and the systemic danger posed by official indifference. When a state takes away an individual's freedom, it simultaneously assumes absolute responsibility for their safety. The failure to investigate, document, and act on credible death threats is not a procedural lapse; it is an abrogation of the state's fundamental duty of care. The question that hangs over this case is not only about one journalist's safety, but about whether the state will uphold its most basic obligation to protect the life and human rights of every person in its custody.