During Ruben Vardanyan’s judicial farce, two of his rquests were denied

As the sole source of developments at the “open court sessions” at the Baku Military Court, where the “trials” of sixteen Armenian hostages are being conducted, AZERTAC, the Aerbaijan state news agency, reports that on 3 June 2025, “At the beginning of the session, Ruben Vardanyan requested that a copy of the indictment in his case be provided to his family. His lawyer, Avraam Berman, supported the request. Assistant to the Prosecutor General Vusal Aliyev responded by stating that, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, information from the preliminary investigation—including the indictment and case materials—constitutes investigative secrecy and may not be disclosed. Furthermore, the indictment contains personal and family information about the parties involved in the criminal proceedings, the dissemination of which is also prohibited by law. He added that the list of individuals eligible to receive a copy of the indictment is clearly defined in the Criminal Procedure Code and does not include family members of the accused. The prosecution, citing these reasons, requested that the motion be denied. The victims present at the hearing expressed agreement with the prosecutors’ position. The panel of judges deliberated on the spot and ruled to deny the motion. Explaining the decision, Judge Zeynal Agayev emphasized that only specific individuals listed in the criminal procedure legislation are entitled to receive copies of the indictment, and the accused’s family members are not among them.”

“Following this, Ruben Vardanyan objected to the panel of judges, citing the refusal to provide the indictment to his family and the rejection of motions he had previously submitted. His lawyer, Avraam Berman, supported the objection. Tugay Rahimli, Special Assistant to the Prosecutor General, responded by stating that the grounds for challenging a judge under Article 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been met. He also noted that Vardanyan had not presented any concrete evidence showing that the panel of judges was biased or interested in the outcome of the case, and requested that the objection not be considered. The victims present also requested that the objection be denied. The court recessed for deliberation. After returning, the court announced its decision regarding the defense’s objection. The objection was dismissed without consideration. Judge Zeynal Agayev, explaining the decision, stated that the defense had not submitted specific or credible evidence as required by the Criminal Procedure Code to prove that the panel of judges had any interest in the prosecution of the accused. No circumstances were identified that could compromise the objectivity or impartiality of the court.”