Azerbaijan Hijab Ban: Can a Secular State Bar Girls From School?
Introduction
The Azerbaijan hijab ban has prompted protests and accusations of religious discrimination after public schools began restricting Islamic headscarves in October 2026. Azerbaijan has not enacted a general prohibition on wearing the hijab in public. Instead, new regulations restrict clothing considered incompatible with school-uniform requirements or the secular character of public education. Although the rules do not expressly mention Islamic headscarves, their enforcement has reportedly prevented Muslim girls from attending classes and affected female teachers.
The controversy followed a September 21 amendment to Azerbaijan's school-uniform regulations and a separate October 6 decision governing teachers' clothing. Parents in Baku and other districts reported being instructed to send their daughters to school without headscarves. Protests followed, accompanied by detentions and public disagreement over whether religious clothing is compatible with secular education.
Azerbaijan's Constitution requires state education to remain secular, but it also protects freedom of religion and guarantees free, compulsory secondary education. As a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, Azerbaijan must respect religious freedom under Article 9 and the right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. European human rights law permits certain restrictions on religious clothing in schools, but their legality depends on specific conditions. The central question is whether Azerbaijan's regulations, particularly when applied to exclude children from compulsory education, satisfy those requirements.
1. Did Azerbaijan Ban the Hijab in Schools?
Azerbaijan's 2026 restrictions concern clothing worn in state general-education institutions. The measures do not establish a general prohibition on Islamic headscarves in streets, private homes, or other public places. Zahid Oruj, chairman of the human rights committee of Azerbaijan's parliament, confirmed that the restrictions were intended to maintain school-uniform requirements rather than prohibit headscarves outside educational institutions.
The distinction between the legal text and its implementation is significant. The regulations require compliance with prescribed clothing standards and the secular character of education. Their application to the hijab depends on how those requirements are interpreted and enforced by educational authorities.
The controversy consequently involves the authority to prescribe school uniforms, the interpretation of restrictions on additional clothing, and the consequences imposed on those who do not comply. The position of children must also be distinguished from that of teachers, who perform professional duties subject to separate clothing requirements.
1.1 The September 2026 School-Uniform Rules
On July 7, 2026, Azerbaijan adopted Law No. 434-VIIQD, amending the General Education Law of March 29, 2019. The legislation introduced an express principle of nationality and secularism in general education. It also established obligations concerning school clothing and authorized the regulation of teachers' dress. Presidential Decree No. 729 of July 22 directed the Cabinet of Ministers to implement those requirements.
Cabinet Decision No. 309, adopted on September 21, amended the school-uniform regulations established by Decision No. 96 of March 17, 2022. Its new paragraph 1.4-1 prohibits additional clothing elements that disrupt the uniformity of prescribed school clothing or conflict with secular general education. The provision does not explicitly identify the hijab or any other religious head covering.
The regulation also permits elements of traditional national clothing during designated cultural and historical events, subject to approval by the school's Pedagogical Council. It requires parents or legal guardians to ensure compliance with uniform rules and assigns questions concerning student compliance to the Pedagogical Council. No equivalent general exemption for religious clothing is expressly established, and the amendment does not itself prescribe automatic exclusion from lessons. Whether a particular refusal of classroom access is authorized requires examination of the applicable rules and the decision taken by school officials.
1.2 School Exclusions, Teachers, and Protests
The restrictions became controversial following reports that girls wearing Islamic headscarves had been refused entry to classrooms. On October 14, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty described complaints involving School No. 172 in Baku's Narimanov district, where Gulmira Aslanova said the administration had instructed her to send her daughter without a headscarf. Parents in Jalilabad reported similar difficulties. These accounts document allegations of restrictive enforcement, although they do not establish how many schools adopted such practices.
Female teachers have also reported exclusion. Cabinet Decision No. 325 of October 6 introduced separate clothing requirements for teachers in state general-education institutions, including an obligation to observe secular educational principles. English teacher Gulshan Aliyeva told Al Jazeera that she had been denied entry to her school in Baku while wearing a hijab. Aliyeva, who reported 23 years of teaching experience, said her daughter had also been prevented from attending school.
Protests involving pupils, parents, and other demonstrators followed. Azerbaijan's Interior Ministry announced on October 12 that 37 people had been detained in connection with incidents surrounding the restrictions. The ministry alleged disruption of public order and interference with educational institutions. Those allegations do not establish criminal responsibility, and the subsequent judicial outcomes of the reported detentions have not been established. The demonstrations nevertheless illustrate how school-clothing rules developed into a dispute over religious freedom and educational access.
2. Why Azerbaijan Restricts Religious Dress
Azerbaijan is a Muslim-majority state whose Constitution establishes a secular political and educational order. Its approach reflects a historical development shaped partly by Soviet rule, when religious institutions and public religious practices were subject to extensive state control. Following independence in 1991, Azerbaijan retained a secular constitutional system rather than recognizing Islam as an official state religion.
School headscarves were controversial well before 2026. In December 2010, approximately 1,000 people demonstrated outside the Ministry of Education in Baku after the education minister emphasized compulsory school uniforms. The requirement was widely interpreted as a restriction on wearing the hijab, although Azerbaijani legislation did not expressly prohibit Islamic headscarves. The demonstrations reflected existing tensions between official secularism and religious observance.
The 2026 measures again emphasize uniformity and secular education. Government representatives have defended the restrictions as a means of preserving a neutral educational environment. Elnara Akimova, a parliamentarian from the governing New Azerbaijan Party, argued that children's religious choices may be influenced by families and their social surroundings. Her explanation connects school neutrality with concerns about pressure on children, although such concerns should be distinguished from the specific objectives expressly recorded in the regulations.
The opposing position distinguishes institutional neutrality from individual religious expression. A student who wears a headscarf does not necessarily represent the state, promote religion to classmates, or interfere with educational activities. The hijab may express a personal religious conviction, although the extent of parental or community influence can differ among individuals. Neither voluntary observance nor coercion can be assumed solely from the garment itself.
Religious leaders have also questioned the restrictions. Sheikh-ul-Islam Allahshukur Pashazade, chairman of the Caucasus Muslims Board, publicly described the hijab as a religious obligation while acknowledging the state's authority and criticizing disruption of schools. The controversy also generated disagreement between Turkish political figures and Azerbaijan's governing party, demonstrating that its political consequences extended beyond domestic education policy.
These competing positions establish the relevance of secularism to the dispute, but they do not resolve its legality. Preventing religious coercion, maintaining consistent school clothing, and protecting institutional neutrality may be legitimate governmental concerns. Whether those objectives justify restricting a pupil's religious practice depends on the nature of the restriction, the evidence supporting it, and its effect on protected rights.
3. Azerbaijan's Constitution: Secularism and Religious Rights
Article 18 of Azerbaijan's Constitution establishes the separation of religion and the state, guarantees equality among religions before the law, and requires the state education system to remain secular. These provisions establish a constitutional basis for regulating public education. They do not expressly prohibit pupils from wearing religious clothing.
Other constitutional guarantees limit how that authority may be exercised. Article 48 protects freedom of conscience, including the freedom to profess religion and express religious beliefs. Article 42 guarantees citizens the right to education and requires the state to provide free and compulsory secondary schooling. Article 25 protects equality before the law, including protection against discrimination on religious grounds.
Article 48(IV) states that religious belief does not excuse violations of law. However, this provision cannot independently determine whether a restriction on religious expression is lawful. Article 71 requires public authorities to protect constitutional rights and establishes that restrictions must be proportionate to the objectives pursued. A uniform requirement must consequently be examined for its compatibility with constitutional guarantees, rather than treated as automatically valid because compliance is mandatory.
Azerbaijan's Law No. 371-VIIQ on the Rights of the Child, adopted on March 3, 2026, provides additional statutory protection. Article 19.1 guarantees every child's freedom of conscience, while Article 19.2 permits parental religious upbringing but prohibits compelling children to profess a religion. Article 19.3 allows restrictions on children's religious freedom only in circumstances prescribed by law and for specified legitimate purposes, including public safety, public order, health, morals, and the rights of others.
Article 25 of the same law guarantees equal access to quality education and free, compulsory general secondary education. It also requires the state to address situations in which children remain outside compulsory schooling. Article 29 guarantees administrative and judicial protection of children's rights. These provisions are particularly relevant where enforcement of a school-uniform regulation prevents a child from attending lessons. The legal question includes whether the regulatory restriction and its consequences satisfy the statutory conditions governing children's religious freedom and educational rights.
International obligations also form part of Azerbaijan's domestic legal system. Article 12 of the Constitution requires constitutional rights to be applied in accordance with Azerbaijan's international treaties, while Article 148(II) incorporates those treaties into the legislative system. Article 151 gives applicable interstate treaties priority over conflicting subordinate normative acts, subject to constitutional exceptions. Article 149(V) separately requires Cabinet resolutions to conform to higher-ranking domestic legislation. These provisions make both domestic legality and international human rights obligations relevant to the interpretation and enforcement of school-clothing rules.
4. Is the Hijab Restriction Legal Under the ECHR?
The European Convention on Human Rights entered into force for Azerbaijan on April 15, 2002. Article 9 protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to manifest religious beliefs through practice and observance. Wearing an Islamic headscarf may constitute a protected religious manifestation. The protection does not depend on establishing that every Muslim woman considers the hijab obligatory under Islamic doctrine.
Article 9 distinguishes the freedom to hold religious beliefs from the freedom to manifest them. The former is absolute, while the latter may be restricted under Article 9(2). Such restrictions must be prescribed by law, pursue a permitted legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society. The permitted aims include public safety, public order, health or morals, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism may inform a state's justification, but it is not an independent ground for restriction expressly listed in Article 9(2).
School exclusions may also engage Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, which protects access to education and requires respect for parents' religious and philosophical convictions in the state's educational functions. Article 14 prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights. An apparently neutral clothing requirement may consequently require examination if its application disproportionately affects pupils of a particular religion. The European Court recognizes a margin of appreciation for national authorities, but that discretion remains subject to Convention requirements.
4.1 Leyla Şahin v. Turkey and University Headscarves
In Leyla Şahin v. Turkey (2005), the European Court of Human Rights examined restrictions on wearing Islamic headscarves at Istanbul University. Şahin, a medical student, had been prevented from attending certain lectures and examinations because she wore a headscarf. She argued that the restrictions interfered with her religious freedom and educational rights.
The Grand Chamber found no violation of Article 9 or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Its reasoning relied on Turkey's constitutional understanding of secularism, the established domestic legal framework, the rights of others, and the state's margin of appreciation. The Court considered the restriction sufficiently foreseeable and proportionate in the circumstances. Judge Françoise Tulkens dissented, questioning whether the necessity of the interference had been adequately demonstrated.
The judgment establishes that restrictions affecting religious clothing and educational access are not necessarily incompatible with the Convention. Its application to Azerbaijan nevertheless requires attention to the different circumstances. Şahin was an adult university student, and the Turkish restrictions operated within a legal system that had developed extensive constitutional and judicial principles concerning secularism. The decision does not dispense with scrutiny of Azerbaijan's legislation or the treatment of children attending compulsory schooling.
4.2 Mikyas v. Belgium and Secondary-School Pupils
Mikyas and Others v. Belgium (2024) provides a closer comparison because it concerned Muslim girls attending secondary schools. The applicants challenged regulations within the Flemish Community's official education system that prohibited visible symbols of religious or philosophical belief. The prohibition applied generally to such symbols, rather than exclusively to Islamic headscarves, with an exception for religious education and non-denominational ethics classes.
The European Court declared the Article 9 complaint manifestly ill-founded. It accepted that the relevant authorities could pursue institutional neutrality through a generally applicable restriction, considering the constitutional framework, prior notice to families, and documented concerns about social pressure and proselytism. The Court also recognized the particular vulnerability of minors. However, the applicants' complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and other Convention provisions, including discrimination claims, were rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, rather than decided on their substantive merits.
The decision demonstrates that the Convention may permit restrictions on religious symbols worn by secondary-school pupils. It does not establish that all such measures are lawful. The Belgian authorities had adopted a general policy supported by detailed domestic reasoning, and the families had received advance notice of the relevant requirements. Whether Azerbaijan's regulation provides comparable legal certainty and justification, and whether its reported enforcement produces comparable consequences, requires a separate assessment.
5. Religious Freedom and Education Under UN Human Rights Law
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects freedom of religion, including religious manifestation. The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 22 explains that protected religious practice may include distinctive clothing and head coverings. Under Article 18(3), limitations must be prescribed by law and necessary to protect specified legitimate interests, including public safety, order, health, morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
In Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan (2004), the Human Rights Committee examined the exclusion of a university student who refused to abandon religious clothing. It found a violation of Article 18(2), concerning coercion that impairs religious freedom, emphasizing the absence of a sufficiently specific justification for the interference. The Committee nevertheless acknowledged that educational institutions may adopt lawful regulations governing their operation.
A related decision, Bikramjit Singh v. France (2012), concerned a Sikh student expelled from a public school for wearing a keski, a religious head covering. The Committee found that the exclusion violated Article 18 because the restriction had not been adequately justified as necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. It did not separately decide the discrimination complaint under Article 26. These Views reflect a more demanding assessment of certain educational exclusions than some Strasbourg decisions, although they concern distinct facts and arise under a separate treaty system.
Children also receive specific protection under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 14 recognizes children's freedom of thought, conscience, and religion and requires respect for parental guidance consistent with their evolving capacities. Articles 3 and 12 protect children's best interests and their right to express views on matters affecting them, while Article 28 recognizes the right to education. These guarantees require attention to the child's own religious convictions and educational circumstances. Neither parental preference nor a general assumption about religious coercion automatically determines what is lawful for an individual pupil.
6. Can Azerbaijan Lawfully Exclude Girls Wearing Hijabs?
Azerbaijan has constitutional and statutory authority to regulate clothing in public schools. Its September 2026 regulation expressly connects school-uniform requirements with secular education. European Court decisions also demonstrate that national authorities may lawfully restrict visible religious symbols in educational institutions under certain conditions. The existence of such authority, however, does not resolve whether individual restrictions or sanctions comply with human rights law.
The first issue is legal certainty. Decision No. 309 prohibits additional clothing elements that disrupt prescribed uniformity or conflict with secular education, but does not expressly identify Islamic headscarves or establish automatic exclusion from lessons. Its interpretation depends partly on decisions made within individual schools. The decisive questions include whether affected families received sufficiently clear notice of the requirements, whether the consequences of noncompliance were foreseeable, and whether school administrators acted within their legal authority.
The second issue concerns necessity and proportionality. Protecting educational neutrality and preventing pressure on children may constitute legitimate objectives, but the authorities must justify the interference actually imposed. Reports of girls being refused classroom access raise questions about the duration of exclusion, its educational consequences, available alternatives, and whether less restrictive measures could achieve the same objectives. The seriousness of an interference cannot be assessed solely by examining the wording of a general uniform regulation.
Azerbaijan's 2026 children's rights legislation makes the consequences of exclusion especially relevant under domestic law. Article 19 protects children's religious freedom, while Article 25 guarantees educational access and requires measures to prevent children from remaining outside compulsory schooling. A decision that repeatedly prevents a girl from attending lessons may place these obligations in tension with the enforcement of school-uniform requirements. The existence of a uniform rule does not, by itself, establish that educational exclusion is an authorized or proportionate response.
The comparison with Mikyas is particularly relevant. The Belgian restrictions operated under an established neutrality policy supported by domestic legal reasoning and evidence of concerns affecting the educational environment. In Azerbaijan, the official regulations establish clothing requirements, while contemporary reports describe their application at particular schools. Those materials do not establish the full extent of enforcement, the reasons recorded in individual school decisions, or whether comparable religious symbols are treated consistently. These factual differences prevent a definitive conclusion based on the Belgian precedent alone.
Teachers occupy a different legal position. Cabinet Decision No. 325 establishes clothing requirements for educators performing professional duties in state schools. In Dahlab v. Switzerland (2001), the European Court declared inadmissible a religious-freedom complaint concerning a primary-school teacher prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf while teaching young children. The decision illustrates the additional considerations arising when an employee represents a public educational institution. It does not establish unrestricted authority to dismiss teachers for religious observance. Any employment-related measure must still satisfy applicable domestic and international legal requirements.
Affected pupils, parents, and teachers may seek remedies through the domestic legal system, subject to the relevant procedural rules. Article 29 of Azerbaijan's Law on the Rights of the Child expressly guarantees administrative and judicial protection of children's rights and lawful interests. An application to the European Court of Human Rights would ordinarily require exhaustion of effective domestic remedies and compliance with the Court's admissibility requirements. No identified final international judgment has determined the compatibility of Azerbaijan's September and October 2026 clothing regulations with the Convention.
The strongest argument supporting the restrictions is that secular public education may require generally applicable clothing standards designed to protect neutrality and the rights of others. The strongest objection concerns the consequences of enforcement when girls are prevented from receiving compulsory education because of their religious clothing. Under the Convention, neither the state's commitment to secularism nor the individual's religious conviction independently resolves that conflict. The outcome depends on the legal basis, legitimate objectives, necessity, proportionality, and demonstrated circumstances of the interference.
Also read
Conclusion
Azerbaijan has not enacted a general nationwide prohibition on wearing the Islamic hijab. Its 2026 regulations govern clothing in state educational institutions, but their reported implementation has prevented some Muslim girls from attending classes while wearing headscarves. The restrictions reflect the country's constitutional commitment to secular education, which exists alongside guarantees of religious freedom, equality, and compulsory schooling.
International human rights law permits certain restrictions on religious clothing in public education. The European Court of Human Rights has accepted such measures in particular circumstances, including cases involving secondary-school pupils. That authority is conditional, however, and does not establish the legality of every school dress code or disciplinary measure. Domestic regulations must remain compatible with the applicable constitutional and treaty guarantees.
The unresolved question is whether Azerbaijan can justify excluding individual girls from compulsory education under its current rules. The absence of an express hijab prohibition, the protections established by Azerbaijan's 2026 children's rights legislation, and the reported consequences of enforcement make legal certainty, educational access, and proportionality central to that assessment. A final determination would require consideration of the specific school decisions, their legal foundations, and the evidence offered to justify them. Until those issues are resolved, the legality of Azerbaijan's 2026 restrictions cannot be treated as conclusively established.
References
APA (2026) ‘DİN: İctimai qaydanın kobud şəkildə pozulması ilə bağlı 37 nəfər həbs edilib – VİDEO’, APA, 12 October [online]. Available at: https://apa.az/hadise/din-ictimai-qaydanin-kobud-sekilde-pozulmasi-ile-bagli-37-nefer-hebs-edilib-video-1004188 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Azerbaijan, Cabinet of Ministers (2022) Dövlət ümumi təhsil müəssisəsi təhsilalanlarının geyim formalarının təsvirləri [Descriptions of Uniforms for Students of State General Education Institutions], Decision No. 96, 17 March 2022. Available at: https://nk.gov.az/uploads/doc/docs/old/da438dfa810e824cea531eb66cb71cb1.pdf (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Azerbaijan, Cabinet of Ministers (2026a) Azərbaycan Respublikası Nazirlər Kabinetinin 2022-ci il 17 mart tarixli 96 nömrəli Qərarı ilə təsdiq edilmiş “Dövlət ümumi təhsil müəssisəsi təhsilalanlarının geyim formalarının təsvirləri”ndə dəyişiklik edilməsi haqqında, Decision No. 309, 21 September 2026. Available at: https://e-qanun.az/framework/62635 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Azerbaijan, Cabinet of Ministers (2026b) Dövlət ümumi təhsil müəssisəsində təhsilverənlər üçün geyim ilə bağlı Tələblər [Clothing Requirements for Teachers in State General Education Institutions], Decision No. 325, 6 October 2026. Available at: https://e-qanun.az/framework/62720 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Azerbaijan, President of the Republic (2026) “Ümumi təhsil haqqında” Azərbaycan Respublikasının Qanununda dəyişiklik edilməsi barədə” Azərbaycan Respublikasının 2026-cı il 7 iyul tarixli 434-VIIQD nömrəli Qanununun tətbiqi haqqında, Presidential Decree No. 729, 22 July 2026. Available at: https://president.az/az/articles/view/73050 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Azerbaijan, Republic of (1995) Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, adopted 12 November 1995, entered into force 27 November 1995, as amended [online]. Available at: https://president.az/en/pages/view/azerbaijan/constitution (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Azerbaijan, Republic of (2019) Ümumi təhsil haqqında Azərbaycan Respublikasının Qanunu [Law on General Education], Law No. 1532-VQ, 29 March 2019. Available at: https://president.az/az/articles/view/33288 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Azerbaijan, Republic of (2026a) Uşaq hüquqları haqqında Azərbaycan Respublikasının Qanunu [Law on the Rights of the Child], Law No. 371-VIIQ, 3 March 2026. Available at: https://president.az/az/articles/view/72101 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Azerbaijan, Republic of (2026b) “Ümumi təhsil haqqında” Azərbaycan Respublikasının Qanununda dəyişiklik edilməsi barədə Azərbaycan Respublikasının Qanunu [Law Amending the Law on General Education], Law No. 434-VIIQD, 7 July 2026. Available at: https://president.az/az/articles/view/73049 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) Adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990, 1577 UNTS 3. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=iv-11&src=treaty (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
European Convention on Human Rights (1950) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953, ETS No. 005. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/en/european-convention-on-human-rights (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
European Court of Human Rights (2001) Dahlab v. Switzerland, application no. 42393/98, decision on admissibility, 15 February 2001, ECHR 2001-V. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-22643 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
European Court of Human Rights (2005) Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [Grand Chamber], application no. 44774/98, judgment, 10 November 2005, ECHR 2005-XI. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70956 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
European Court of Human Rights (2024) Mikyas and Others v. Belgium, application no. 50681/20, decision on admissibility, 9 April 2024, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0409DEC005068120. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-233826 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Human Rights Committee (1993) General Comment No. 22: Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, 27 September 1993. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/hrc/1993/13375 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Human Rights Committee (2004) Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan, Communication No. 931/2000, Views adopted 5 November 2004, CCPR/C/82/D/931/2000. Available at: https://juris.ohchr.org/casedetails/977/en-US (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Human Rights Committee (2012) Bikramjit Singh v. France, Communication No. 1852/2008, Views adopted 1 November 2012, CCPR/C/106/D/1852/2008. Available at: https://juris.ohchr.org/casedetails/1655/en-US (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ShowDetails.aspx?clang=_en&objid=0800000280004bf5 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Kazimov, S. (2026) ‘Tensions with teachers, pupils and Turkiye: Inside Azerbaijan’s hijab row’, Al Jazeera, 14 October [online]. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/10/14/tensions-with-teachers-pupils-and-turkiye-inside-azerbaijans-hijab-row (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
OSW Centre for Eastern Studies (2010) ‘Protest against a ban on wearing the hijab in schools in Azerbaijan’, OSW Analyses, 15 December [online]. Available at: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2010-12-15/protest-against-a-ban-wearing-hijab-schools-azerbaijan (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1952) Signed at Paris on 20 March 1952, entered into force 18 May 1954, ETS No. 009 (Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights). Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/ (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Azerbaijani Service (2026) ‘Schools in Azerbaijan turn away girls wearing hijabs as debate over religious freedom intensifies’, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 14 October [online]. Available at: https://www.rferl.org/a/azerbaijan-hijab-schools-religious-freedom/33876565.html (Accessed: 16 October 2026).