Public apology videos emerge as new pressure tactic in Azerbaijan
Apology videos in Azerbaijan
At first, a person complains on social media about the quality of housing, the actions of officials, injustice, or corruption. The video spreads across the internet, but a day later or several days later, another video appears. The same person, speaking in an official tone, says that they were mistaken, have no complaints against anyone, and regret what they said.
In Azerbaijan, such apology videos have long become part of the country’s social and political reality. They rarely appear to be voluntary explanations; rather, they serve as displays of power and warnings to others.
Moreover, it is not only politicians, activists, and journalists who are targeted, but ordinary citizens as well.
Meydan TV examined how public apology videos are used and why virtually anyone can become a target.
An article by Meydan TV.
_________________________________________________________________
First a complaint, then an apology
One of the most recent cases involved a resident of the Jabrayil district, a territory that returned to Azerbaijan’s control after the Second Karabakh War in 2020. Following the war, the authorities launched a program to rebuild the liberated territories and facilitate the return of former internally displaced persons.
As part of this process, the man was provided with a new home. However, after moving in, he recorded a video complaining about the quality of the house. The very next day, another video appeared online. This time, he said that he had no complaints against anyone and regretted his actions.
A similar episode occurred in 2022. At the time, truck drivers blocked a road on Heydar Aliyev Avenue in protest against the State Road Transport Service. On their trucks, they wrote that their goods had spoiled and that they themselves were on the verge of bankruptcy.
The very next day, videos of their apologies were published. After the protest, both drivers were sentenced to 30 days of administrative detention.
In the same year, an apology video of Sanan Ahmedov, the brother of Sabukhi Ahmedov who was killed in the fighting in Karabakh, was released. Earlier, Sanan Ahmedov had claimed that his brother had allegedly been paid a bribe of 6,000 manats (approximately $3,500) to be accepted into a commando brigade.
A few days after this statement, he appeared in a video in which he was apologizing.
Why are apology videos needed?
Lawyer Emin Abbasov says that Azerbaijani legislation does not provide for an obligation to apologize under coercion.
On the contrary, according to him, it is the law enforcement and judicial authorities that are responsible for protecting citizens from such treatment.
“The state uses apology videos in order to humiliate people, undermine their reputation and trust in them, and punish them through threats and pressure. It is also a message to others: do not repeat behavior that the state considers unacceptable,” Abbasov says.
In this sense, such videos function not only as individual punishment. Their public nature turns a private case into a warning for society as a whole.
A person who only yesterday was speaking about a problem finds themselves in front of a camera the next day in a different role—repentant, broken, or forced to retract their own words.
From confessions under torture to social media videos
Historically, a confession was considered one of the main proofs of guilt. People were often forced to confess under torture.
Modern legal systems were supposed to leave this practice in the past, but authoritarian regimes have effectively adapted it to new conditions: instead of a torture chamber, a video camera; instead of a court transcript, a clip for television or social media.
The goal, however, has remained the same: to secure compliance and demonstrate power.
Forced confessions were one of the key elements of ancient judicial systems in both the East and the West. For centuries, confessions obtained by any means were often considered the main requirement for issuing a verdict and punishment.
Today, such practices formally contradict the principles of a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and the protection of human dignity.
However, in authoritarian systems, they continue to exist in a renewed, media-driven form.
Such confessions and apologies are most often used against journalists, human rights defenders, opposition politicians, and activists. However, the Azerbaijani example shows that the range of potential targets can be much wider.
Where else are forced confessions used?
The practice of public confessions and apology videos is not unique to Azerbaijan. It is used in countries where the state seeks to control not only the political sphere but also the public expression of dissent.
In Iran, Russia, China, Belarus, and other authoritarian or repressive systems, such videos are often used against people whose activities involve criticism of the authorities. These may include journalists, bloggers, activists, human rights defenders, or members of the opposition.
According to the International Federation for Human Rights, at least 355 videos containing forced confessions were broadcast in Iran between 2009 and 2019.
One of the most well-known cases involves the Iranian journalist Ruhollah Zam, who criticized the Iranian authorities.
Shortly after his arrest, state television aired a video in which he, blindfolded and sitting in a car, apologizes and says that he was wrong to trust governments other than Iran’s.
The journalist was later executed.
Another high-profile example is the Belarusian journalist and opposition activist Roman Protasevich.
In 2021, after publications in the NEXTA Telegram channel criticizing the authorities of Belarus, he was forcibly returned to the country after the landing of a Ryanair airplane in Minsk. Later, state television showed a 90-minute video where Protasevich, with tears in his eyes, praises President Alexander Lukashenko.
But the practice of public apologies is not only visible in countries that are usually cited as the most severe examples.
In various forms, it is also found in Central Asia, including Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. There, apology videos can also become a means of pressure, public humiliation, or a demonstration of who controls the boundaries of acceptable speech.
And what about Kazakhstan?
In Kazakhstan, public apologies by “offenders” have long become part of social practice.
Sometimes they involve everyday situations, for example when a person apologizes for inappropriate behavior or a traffic accident.
But in other cases, the apologies do not look like voluntary remorse but rather like a way of showing “who is in charge.” In this sense, the situation in Kazakhstan is in many ways similar to Azerbaijan.
Quite often, such apologies are related to sensitive social issues, such as the language question. For example, businessman Ravil Mukhoraypov was once forced to publicly apologize.
He stated that responding in Kazakh to a question asked in Russian was a sign of a “lack of culture.” After criticism and complaints from public figures to the police, law enforcement authorities launched an investigation into possible incitement of riot.
Soon after, Mukhoraypov issued a public apology and explained that his words had been misunderstood. The case was later dropped, as the police found no evidence of a criminal offense.
Another notable example is the artist Nurtas Adambay. Two years ago, he publicly apologized to several politicians at once, including Kazakhstan’s current president Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, former president Nursultan Nazarbayev, the presidents of Russia and Belarus Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko, as well as Majilis deputy Rinat Zaitov.
In his posts, he described his earlier criticism as “foolishness” and thanked those addressed for their work.
Recently, journalist Botagoz Omarova also issued an apology. At the end of March, she was placed under house arrest and a criminal case was opened against her on suspicion of disseminating knowingly false information. In May, an official retraction letter appeared on her Telegram channel: Omarova acknowledged that earlier information about alleged debts owed by VD Stroy Engineering to workers of Remstroy-1 “does not correspond to reality.”
She also apologized to her audience and to those she may have misled. On the same day, the Astana police announced that the criminal case had been closed due to reconciliation between the parties, and that the house arrest had been lifted.
Sometimes this practice also affects ordinary citizens.
In the autumn of 2021 in the Pavlodar region, staff of a the rural akimat (the local administration) forced a pensioner who had filmed heavy snowfall to apologize.The woman sent the video to relatives, but it spread on social media.
The next day, akimat officials came to her, asked whether she had any complaints against the authorities, and filmed her on camera. After that, a video of her apology appeared in a local WhatsApp news group.
Later, following public backlash, the district akim (director of the Pavlodar region) himself apologized to the pensioner for the actions of his subordinates.
The head of the International Foundation for the Protection of Freedom of Speech “Adil Soz,” Karlygash Jamankulova, has described the practice of forced apologies as an “erosion of trust.”
According to her, coercion into apologizing is not a legal instrument but a means of managing public opinion, and a very crude one at that: it undermines trust in law enforcement agencies and the justice system.
And what about Kyrgyzstan?
In Kyrgyzstan, public apologies have also become a regular practice. Authorities and security services often describe conversations with citizens, journalists, or bloggers as “preventive talks.”
But in practice, this can involve interrogation, pressure, or intimidation, without a proper procedural status, summons, or legal safeguards.
In December 2025, a Kyrgyz woman appeared in a video by a Russian blogger, and her interview became the basis for an investigation by the Main Directorate of Internal Affairs (GUVD). The woman was taken to the agency, where she was given “explanatory work,” after which she recorded a video apologizing to everyone who might have been offended by her words.
In April 2025, a similar format was used in relation to a customs officer who, while intoxicated, attempted to evade patrol officers and insulted them. After the intervention of the State Committee for National Security (GKNB), a video was published in which he apologized for his actions. Later, the Customs Service dismissed him for discrediting the agency.
In May of the same year, Bishkek resident Aibek Ulanov issued a public apology to the women of Kyrgyzstan after making offensive remarks on social media about a woman who had been brutally killed by her husband. Following the renewed public backlash, he was detained again and later fined 100,000 soms (993 Euro).
A separate line is pressure following posts about social or everyday problems.
For example, blogger Altynai Ju, the owner of the popular page babskii_blog, wrote about the electricity situation in November 2025. After that, she was summoned to the State Committee for National Security (GKNB).
After leaving the agency, she praised the security service for its “friendliness” and deleted her posts, explaining that she could somehow be held responsible for other people’s comments under her publications.
Public apologies have also affected journalists.
At the end of May 2025, the State Committee for National Security (GKNB) carried out mass arrests of employees of the independent outlet “Kloop.” Most of those detained were later released, but the security service published videos of apologies from several current and former employees of the outlet.
On camera, they asked for forgiveness “from the people of Kyrgyzstan” for allegedly “discrediting the president and his close circle,” and promised to stop cooperating with “Kloop Media.”
Sputnik’s chief editor Erkin Alymbekov also had to apologize for his journalism. This happened in 2023 after the publication of an investigation into contractors involved in construction in the Batken region who were linked to presidential administration official Kanybek Tumanbaev.
Alymbekov was not detained, but the publication was publicly criticized by government representatives, and the investigation was commented on by President Sadyr Japarov. In the end, Alymbekov himself recorded a video apologizing for the “inconvenience caused.”
Such practices existed earlier as well.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the authorities in Kyrgyzstan regularly obtained apologies from doctors and citizens for criticizing shortages of masks, gloves, antiseptics, medicines, and medical equipment.
One well-known case involved doctor Bektur Apyshov: he spoke about the lack of quality masks for medical staff, and shortly afterward a video appeared on social media in which he apologized and retracted his statements.
At the same time, apologies were also demanded from Bishkek resident Eldiyar Zholdoshev, who criticized the authorities for inaction in the fight against the coronavirus. After he refused to record an apology video, a case was opened against him for “inciting hatred.”
Linguists were brought in to examine his statements, and by 2026 such expert analyses had already become a routine part of pressure on critics.
After a series of scandals and a decline in the level of press freedom in Kyrgyzstan, presidential press secretary Askat Alagozov stated in March 2026 that law enforcement authorities are recommended to apply “preventive measures” not involving arrest to journalists, civil activists, and businesspeople.
In practice, humiliating videos in which individuals retract their statements, admit guilt, or make self-incriminating remarks may become part of such “preventive measures.”
How does Azerbaijani practice differ from other examples?
In international practice, such videos are most often used against people who are already perceived by the authorities as political opponents: journalists, activists, human rights defenders, and members of the opposition.
In Azerbaijan, judging by known cases, this tool is used much more broadly.
Not only public figures can be targeted, but also ordinary citizens who have complained about living conditions, reported alleged corruption, or expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of government bodies.
What do such videos look like?
Such videos often share common characteristics.
The person speaks in a monotonous and formal tone. Their speech does not sound like a natural account but rather like a prewritten and memorized text. The wording is often overly careful, bureaucratic, or unnatural for spontaneous speech.
Also noticeable is the person’s behavior on camera: a tense posture, restrained facial expressions, and a lack of emotional freedom.
Such videos are often filmed in settings that look official. The person is usually sitting alone in front of the camera, without an interviewer, and without the opportunity to ask questions or explain the circumstances.
The content also tends to be repetitive. The person expresses regret for their actions, retracts their previous statements, declares that they were wrong, and sometimes praises government officials or state institutions. As a result, the viewer is shown not an explanation, but an act of submission.
At the same time, it is not always possible to prove from the outside that a specific video was recorded under direct pressure. However, the very repetition of the format, the speed with which such videos appear after critical statements, and the nature of the speech create a strong perception of coercion.
Lawyer Emin Abbasov believes that the authorities have been using this tool for many years, which is why society in general does not believe in the sincerity of such videos. According to him, the authorities themselves also understand that there is little trust in these videos.
Why is this dangerous?
Apology videos replace legal procedures, Emin Abbasov believes.
If a person has made a false statement, broken the law, or defamed someone, in a rule-of-law state this should be handled through the courts, with the involvement of lawyers, evidence, and an independent hearing.
But a public confession in front of a camera removes the conflict from the legal sphere and turns it into a demonstration of power.
Such a practice undermines several fundamental principles at once.
First, it violates human dignity. A person is not only forced to retract their statements but is turned into an object of public punishment.
Second, it suppresses freedom of expression. Other citizens, seeing such videos, may refrain from speaking about their own problems, even if those problems are real.
Third, it weakens trust in state institutions. Instead of a response to a complaint, society sees pressure on the complainant. Instead of an investigation, there are apologies. Instead of dialogue, there is fear.
And finally, such a practice narrows the space for independent information. If a person understands that posting a complaint on social media may lead to public humiliation, they are likely to choose silence instead.
No fair trial, no independent media—who’s next?
“It is obvious that non-democratic countries where the rule of law does not function are intolerant of different, alternative, and critical opinions. This is because such power does not derive its legitimacy from the voice of society. From a human rights perspective, I cannot imagine a more destructive policy than closing all doors to citizens,” says Emin Abbasov.
Once, independent Azerbaijani media could reach even the most remote villages and become the voice of citizens. In the best cases, problems were resolved after their reporting. In the worst cases, even if nothing changed, people at least had the opportunity to speak out and be heard.
However, since 2023, pressure on journalists from independent media in Azerbaijan has in practice been aimed at silencing those who professionally investigate and publish socially significant information.
But achieving this completely was impossible as long as every person still had the ability to share their version of the truth through social media.
It appears that now the authorities are also trying to restrict this possibility. If earlier the main targets were journalists, activists, or opposition figures, now any person who publicly expresses dissatisfaction may come under pressure.
With the support of ‘Mediaset’
