‘No Facts or Evidence’: Lawyer Challenges Ruben Vardanyan’s 20-Year Sentence in Azerbaijan
INTERVIEW: The Azerbaijani court that sentenced Ruben Vardanyan to 20 years in prison held him responsible for alleged crimes dating back to 1988, decades before he became an official in Artsakh, according to an Armenian lawyer who reviewed the full judgment in his case.
Siranush Sahakyan, an attorney representing Vardanyan before the European Court of Human Rights, told The Armenian Report that she found no evidence in the judgment showing that Vardanyan personally ordered, planned or participated in killings, mine-laying or other violent acts for which he was convicted.
Instead, she said, the court treated the Armenian administration in Nagorno-Karabakh as a criminal organization and concluded that Vardanyan became responsible for its alleged crimes after joining the Artsakh government.
“The court concluded that the unrecognized administration of Nagorno-Karabakh constituted a ‘criminal enterprise’ and that, by joining this ‘criminal association’ in 2022 as state minister, Ruben Vardanyan became responsible for ‘all crimes committed by that association,’ both before and after his appointment,” Sahakyan said.
Vardanyan served as state minister of the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh from November 2022 until February 2023. Azerbaijan detained him in September 2023 as he attempted to cross into Armenia following Baku’s military offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh and the subsequent exodus of the region’s indigenous Armenian population.
The Baku Military Court sentenced him to 20 years on Feb. 17 after convicting him on charges that included terrorism, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Prosecutors had sought a life sentence.
Azerbaijani authorities say the proceedings complied with legal standards. State news agency AZERTAC reported that Vardanyan had a Russian-language interpreter and a state-funded defense attorney during the trial.
Sahakyan disputes that account, saying Vardanyan was denied an effective defense and that independent foreign lawyers were unable to represent him in court.
She said the judgment covers alleged events from 1988 through 2023, including episodes from the first Nagorno-Karabakh war, long before Vardanyan became involved in the region.
“At that time, he was a student at Moscow State University and had not even set foot in Nagorno-Karabakh,” Sahakyan said.
Among the cases described in the judgment are deaths and injuries caused by land mines. Sahakyan said some mines were described by prosecutors as having been planted before Vardanyan moved to Artsakh.
She pointed to one witness whose testimony described a vehicle hitting a mine, causing deaths and injuries. According to Sahakyan, the witness asked the court to impose the harshest possible punishment on Vardanyan but did not testify that Vardanyan had planted the mine, ordered it to be planted or participated in a decision to do so.
“There is not a single document, audio recording, or any other piece of evidence demonstrating Ruben Vardanyan’s involvement in alleged minelaying, murders, or terrorism,” she said.
Sahakyan said the judgment also relied on Vardanyan’s civic, business and charitable activities. She cited his involvement with the Aurora Humanitarian Initiative and his participation as a godfather in a mass wedding ceremony in Artsakh as examples of activities used in the case against him.
She has previously made similar claims publicly after reviewing the judgment, saying witnesses cited in several episodes did not testify that Vardanyan personally committed the acts, gave orders or participated in the decisions at issue. (International and Comparative Law Center)
Sahakyan also identified what she described as significant contradictions in the court’s written decision.
She said the judgment states that Vardanyan had no previous criminal record but later refers to recidivism when considering aggravating circumstances.
In another instance, Sahakyan said Vardanyan was sentenced to 14 years under Article 214-2 of Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code even though that article was not among the charges against him or the final list of provisions under which he was convicted.
That meant, she argued, Vardanyan had no opportunity to defend himself against the provision ultimately used to impose that portion of his sentence.
Sahakyan also pointed to a charge involving aviation safety under Article 270-1.2. According to her reading of the judgment, the court acknowledged that the two-year statute of limitations for prosecution had expired but nevertheless convicted Vardanyan under the same article.
“Overall, this case is exceptional not only in terms of legal violations, but also because it defies all human common sense and reason,” she said.
The claims about the contents of the judgment are Sahakyan’s legal assessment. The Armenian Report has not independently verified each passage of the court document cited in her interview.
Azerbaijani officials reject accusations that Vardanyan was denied a fair trial. Azerbaijan’s human rights commissioner, Sabina Aliyeva, said after the verdict that the proceedings complied with international judicial practice and that Vardanyan and his defense counsel were able to participate in the case.
Vardanyan chose not to appeal the verdict in Azerbaijan, saying through his representatives that he did not recognize the proceedings as a legitimate judicial process. (International and Comparative Law Center)
The legal fight has instead moved to the European Court of Human Rights.
Sahakyan filed an application with the ECHR on July 19 challenging Azerbaijan’s treatment and prosecution of Vardanyan. According to the International and Comparative Law Center, the application alleges violations of eight articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. (International and Comparative Law Center)
Sahakyan said the case received limited independent scrutiny while the trial was underway and that international journalists and outside legal experts now have an opportunity to examine the judgment in greater detail.
She said an English translation of the document has been made publicly available.
For Sahakyan, the central question is not simply whether the allegations described in the judgment concern serious crimes, but whether prosecutors established Vardanyan’s individual criminal responsibility for them.
Her answer is unequivocal.
“Ruben Vardanyan’s individual guilt has not been established by any facts or evidence,” she said.
—
Support independent reporting from the region by subscribing to The Armenian Report. Our team is funded solely by readers like you.
Comments