Azerbaijani Prisoner in ‘Karima State’ Case Transferred to Closed-Regime Prison After Repeated Punishment
Mirvasid Aliyev, sentenced to 10 years in prison in the controversial “Karima State” case, has been transferred to a closed-regime section of the Umbaki Penitentiary Complex for six months following a court ruling. His family says the decision came after weeks of repeated disciplinary punishment and isolation.
The transfer was confirmed by Aliyev’s mother, Sanam Aliyeva, who told Meydan TV that the administration of Penitentiary Facility No. 2 had asked a court to impose a significantly harsher detention regime on her son.
According to Aliyeva, the head of the facility, Vusal Aslanov, requested that Mirvasid Aliyev be transferred to a closed-regime prison for three years, arguing that the prisoner had not been “rehabilitated.”
The court partially granted the request, ordering Aliyev to spend six months under a closed prison regime at the Umbaki Penitentiary Complex.
He was transferred following the ruling.
But his family says the decision cannot be viewed in isolation from what happened during the weeks preceding it.
Six Stints in Punishment Cells
According to his mother, Aliyev had been transferred from the Umbaki Penitentiary Complex to Penitentiary Facility No. 2 on June 20, 2026.
She says that almost immediately after arriving at the facility, her son began facing disciplinary sanctions.
Between June 20 and the latest court decision, Aliyev was allegedly placed in a punishment cell — commonly known by the Russian-derived term “kars” in Azerbaijan’s prison system — six separate times.
His mother says he was never allowed to join the prison’s general population.
“My son was transferred from the Umbaki Penitentiary Complex to Penitentiary Facility No. 2 on June 20. Since the day he arrived, he has been placed in a punishment cell six times under various disciplinary penalties. He has still not been allowed into the general population and has been kept under a closed regime inside the facility,” Sanam Aliyeva told Meydan TV.
The sequence raises questions about the justification subsequently presented for imposing an even stricter detention regime.
Prison Administration Says He Was Not ‘Rehabilitated’
According to Aliyev’s family, prison officials argued before the court that he had failed to reform and was exerting a negative influence on other prisoners.
His mother disputes that account.
She points to an apparent contradiction: if her son spent his time after arrival either in quarantine, punishment cells or other forms of restricted detention, she argues, it is unclear how he could have had sufficient contact with the wider prison population to conduct the alleged “propaganda” among other inmates.
According to Sanam Aliyeva, the prison administration also accused her son of obstructing morning and evening cell inspections, associating with prisoners described as displaying “negative behaviour,” failing to read books and treating prison staff improperly.
She rejects those allegations.
“Mirvasid was first kept in quarantine after arriving there, then in a punishment cell and under a closed regime,” she said. “If that is the case, how are we supposed to understand the claim that he was influencing other prisoners?”
The discrepancy between the conditions in which the family says Aliyev was held and the allegations that he was influencing other inmates raises questions about the evidence used to justify the tougher regime.
Court Hearing Held Inside the Prison
There is another unusual aspect to the proceedings.
According to Aliyev’s mother, the hearing on changing his detention regime was not conducted in an ordinary public courtroom.
Instead, the court session took place inside the territory of the penitentiary facility and was closed to the public.
Aliyev was represented by a lawyer during the proceedings, according to his family.
The prison administration had sought a three-year closed-regime placement.
The court reduced that period substantially, ordering six months instead.
Following the ruling, Aliyev was returned to the Umbaki Penitentiary Complex to serve the six-month period under the stricter regime.
What Is the ‘Karima State’ Case?
Mirvasid Aliyev is one of 13 defendants prosecuted in what became known as the “Karima State” case in Azerbaijan.
The defendants were accused of attempting to establish a state referred to as the “Karima State” and faced a collection of some of the most serious offences contained in Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code.
A court delivered its verdict in February 2023.
Mirvasid Aliyev was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Defendants in the case faced charges under several provisions of the Criminal Code, including allegations related to recruiting a minor into a criminal group or serious crime, drug offences, treason, preparation of a crime, attempting to assassinate a state or public figure, and attempting to forcibly change Azerbaijan’s constitutional order.
The charges included Articles 170.3, 234.1-1, 274, 28, 277 and 278.2 of Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code.
These are exceptionally serious accusations, several of which concern offences against the state and constitutional order.
Questions Over the Escalation of Prison Restrictions
The latest decision concerns neither Aliyev’s original conviction nor the length of his 10-year sentence.
Instead, it concerns how that sentence is being enforced inside Azerbaijan’s penitentiary system.
The distinction is important.
According to the account provided by his family, Aliyev was transferred to Penitentiary Facility No. 2 on June 20, repeatedly placed in punishment cells, prevented from entering the general prison population and then brought before a court following a request from the prison administration for a substantially stricter regime.
The administration reportedly justified its request partly by alleging that Aliyev had failed to reform and was influencing other inmates.
His family argues that his isolation itself calls that explanation into question.
The case therefore leaves several issues requiring clarification:
What specific disciplinary violations led to Aliyev being sent to a punishment cell six times in little more than two months?
What evidence supported the allegation that he was influencing other prisoners while, according to his family, he was largely isolated from them?
Why did the prison administration consider a three-year closed-regime placement necessary?
And what evidence persuaded the court that six months under a stricter prison regime was justified?
For Mirvasid Aliyev, the consequence is already clear.
More than three years after receiving a decade-long prison sentence in the “Karima State” case, he will now spend at least the next six months under a substantially more restrictive detention regime.
