The Ombudsman Relayed the Agencies’ Replies — But Was the Right to Information Restored?

The Office of Azerbaijan’s Commissioner for Human Rights requested information from government bodies about construction and environmental problems in Buzovna. Most of the questions, however, remain unanswered, while no legal assessment has been given of the authorities’ initial silence.

On May 25, 2026, I sent information requests to five institutions: the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, the Azerbaijan State Water Resources Agency, the State Committee for Urban Planning and Architecture, the Azerbaijan Trade Unions Confederation and the Khazar District Executive Authority.

The requests concerned the construction and operation of a sewage line in the Buzovna settlement, damage to road infrastructure, land subsidence, sewage leakage and possible contamination of the Caspian Sea’s coastal zone.

I asked whether internal, technical and environmental inspections had been conducted, whether the responsible organisations had been identified, whether officials’ actions had received a legal assessment, whether an independent expert examination was planned and when the damaged infrastructure would be restored.

A separate question concerned the possible discharge of untreated wastewater into the Caspian Sea in the Zagulba–Buzovna area.

I did not receive substantive replies from most of the addressees within the legally prescribed period. Therefore, on June 23, I lodged a complaint with Commissioner for Human Rights Sabina Aliyeva over the violation of my right to information.

A reply instead of an investigation

The first response from the Ombudsman’s Office was dated August 12. It stated that I had already contacted the relevant government bodies concerning the matter.

The Office then referred to Article 1.5 of the Constitutional Law “On the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman) of the Republic of Azerbaijan”. Under that provision, the Ombudsman’s activities neither restrict nor replace the powers of other government bodies responsible for protecting human rights.

The reference itself is legally correct. The Ombudsman should not conduct an environmental assessment in place of the Ministry of Ecology, manage sewage networks in place of the water agency or repair a road in place of the executive authority.

But I had not asked the Ombudsman to replace those bodies.

The subject of my complaint was their inaction — their failure to respond to information requests. The Office should therefore have examined when the requests were received and registered, whether the statutory deadlines had been observed, whether notices of an extension or referral had been issued and whether there were lawful grounds for withholding the information.

The August 12 letter did not state whether the application had been accepted as a complaint concerning a violation of the right to information, whether an investigation was under way or what measures the Ombudsman intended to take.

In effect, the reference to Article 1.5 substituted a different issue for the actual subject of the complaint. The question was not the powers of government bodies in construction or environmental affairs, but their obligation to answer information requests.

What did the Ombudsman’s Office establish?

The second letter, dated August 21, was more substantive. It shows that, following my complaint, the Ombudsman requested information from the five institutions.

The Azerbaijan State Water Resources Agency said that the water and sewage lines serving the Khazar and Sheki sanatoriums had been built by a construction company appointed by the client. Yet neither the client nor the contractor was identified.

The agency also said that project documentation had been prepared for the centralised removal of wastewater from settlements in the Khazar district. Wastewater generated in Buzovna is expected to be transferred to a treatment plant. Construction of the main collectors and the treatment facility, however, remains at the design stage.

The Khazar District Executive Authority said that internal inspections, technical examinations and legal assessments of their results did not fall within its powers. The district administration confined itself to contacting the United Water Supply Service for Large Cities.

The letter also referred to a laboratory analysis of a single water sample taken from an inspection well on the drainage line. According to the water agency, no pollutants were detected and the area was placed under monitoring.

The letter, however, does not reveal when the sample was taken, which indicators were examined or whether the tests covered petroleum products, heavy metals and bacteriological contamination. It is also unclear whether the sampling procedure complied with established requirements or whether a single sample can adequately reflect the condition of the entire drainage system and the adjacent marine waters.

A project without an environmental opinion

The most significant information appears in the reply from the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources.

The ministry acknowledged that it had not received any application or project documentation relating to the work in the area. Consequently, no state environmental assessment had been conducted and no environmental opinion had been issued.

Furthermore, Regional Department of Ecology and Natural Resources No. 11 sent a request to the United Water Supply Service for Large Cities on June 3. It demanded information about the implementing and contracting organisations, the person responsible for environmental protection and the relevant supporting documents.

The information was required to initiate an administrative investigation into the failure to take the necessary steps to obtain an environmental opinion for construction of the sewage line.

According to the Ombudsman’s letter, however, the United Water Supply Service for Large Cities did not respond to the environmental authority’s request.

Instead of resolving the questions, the official reply therefore revealed another problem: an organisation connected with the project failed to provide information requested by a state environmental authority for the purpose of initiating an administrative investigation.

The Ombudsman’s Office mentioned this fact but did not say whether it had been given a legal assessment, whether the missing information had been formally demanded or whether the matter had been referred to a higher authority.

Most questions remain unanswered

Although the letters obtained by the Ombudsman contain some information, they do not address most of the questions raised.

The authorities have still not officially disclosed:

• the project’s full official name;
• the client, designer and general contractor;
• the organisations responsible for technical and design supervision;
• the project’s cost and source of financing;
• information about the public procurement procedure;
• the dates and numbers of the permits;
• the legal basis for excavation and opening the road;
• the pipeline’s technical specifications;
• the coordinates and design of the discharge point;
• the construction completion date;
• the reasons for the delays;
• the organisation responsible for restoring the asphalt;
• the date when normal traffic will be fully restored;
• the officials responsible for the absence of a construction information board;
• the results of internal and technical inspections.

Nor have copies of the requested project, permitting, procurement, environmental and supervision documents been provided.

Finally, there has been no explanation of why the government bodies failed to answer the original information requests on time.

What should the Ombudsman have examined?

The Ombudsman’s official website states that the Commissioner monitors government bodies’ compliance with their obligations under the Law “On Access to Information”, investigates complaints and issues demands for violations to be remedied.

Article 13-1 of the Constitutional Law on the Ombudsman establishes a special procedure for examining complaints concerning violations of the right to information.

The Commissioner must determine:

• whether the request was registered;
• whether it was examined in accordance with the law;
• whether the deadline and prescribed method of providing information were observed;
• whether any refusal complied with the law;
• whether the duty to disclose information of public interest was fulfilled fully and accurately.

If a violation is found, the Ombudsman requires the holder of the information to remedy it. The relevant body must report on the measures taken within ten working days. If the requirement is not fulfilled, the Ombudsman may refer the matter to a higher authority.

The law also empowers the Ombudsman to request documents and explanations, order inspections and expert opinions, demand the restoration of violated rights and propose disciplinary action against responsible officials.

The Ombudsman’s role therefore cannot be limited to forwarding or paraphrasing letters from the very institutions whose inaction is under complaint.

Partial assistance instead of restoration of the right

It would be inaccurate to claim that the Ombudsman’s Office did nothing. Following the complaint, it requested information from government bodies and uncovered several facts of considerable public importance.

In particular, it emerged that no environmental assessment had been conducted, no environmental opinion had been issued and the environmental authority’s request for information needed to initiate an administrative investigation had gone unanswered.

Obtaining several official letters, however, does not in itself mean that the violated right was restored.

The Office did not provide a legal assessment of the government bodies’ initial silence, establish whether statutory deadlines had been breached, compare the replies with each of the questions submitted or explain whether formal demands to remedy the violations had been issued.

As a result, the August 21 letter is primarily informational rather than rights-protective. It reports what the government bodies said but does not answer the central question: was the applicant’s right to information violated, and was that right fully restored?

Not a correspondence intermediary, but a guarantor of the right

The Ombudsman is not required to draft technical answers on behalf of the responsible government bodies. The Ombudsman must, however, ensure that holders of information respond in the legally prescribed manner — promptly, fully and on the substance of the request.

In this case, the Office should have required each institution to send the applicant a complete reply or provide specific legal grounds for withholding each category of information and document.

It should also be established why the environmental authority’s request was ignored and what consequences arise from constructing the line without a state environmental assessment.

Until these steps are taken, the purpose of the complaint to the Ombudsman cannot be considered achieved. Instead of a full investigation into the violation of the right to information, the applicant received a summary of incomplete agency replies.

The problem is not that the Ombudsman did not replace the government bodies. The problem is that the Ombudsman’s response does not show whether those bodies were required to comply with the law.

That is precisely where the line lies between acting as an intermediary in official correspondence and genuinely protecting the right to information.