The staged judicial farce in Baku against the political and military leadership of Artsakh and other captives continues. The goal is clear: to portray the existential struggle of the people of Artsakh—aimed at resisting Azerbaijani genocidal actions and living safely in their ancestral homeland for millennia—as acts of terrorism.
Not only are the current Armenian authorities failing to oppose this, but by recognizing Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan, they have also laid the groundwork for official Baku to carry out yet another genocidal campaign against the people of Artsakh. This includes abducting Armenians from the Berdzor corridor, subjecting them to inhumane torture, and staging this so-called “trial.”
Human rights advocate Siranush Sahakyan, who represents the interests of Armenian captives before the European Court of Human Rights, shared her observations on this Azerbaijani provocation in the Panorama Interviews studio.
Here is the first part of the main points expressed in the interview, translated into English:
• Azerbaijan, through its destructive actions, delegitimized and destroyed a legally established international right—the right to self-determination—by resorting to force and external political pressure.
• Driven purely by political motives, Azerbaijan made the political and military leadership of Artsakh, who ended up under its control as a result of the conflict, part of these staged proceedings.
• These “trials” serve multiple purposes. We see a domestic agenda: a demonstration of force, repositioning of the Aliyev regime, and exploitation of the situation in internal politics.
• A consistent narrative in Baku’s “trials” is the claim that all actions were planned, prepared, and directed by the Republic of Armenia. This is no coincidence, as all of Azerbaijan’s claims relate to alleged violations of its territorial integrity.
• Such an environment is completely absent in Azerbaijan. The judiciary is an extension of the executive power and serves political orders.
• Ultimately, this is a purely political process aimed at providing judicial backing to Azerbaijan’s foreign policy narratives.
• On the issue of captives, Armenia lacks strong diplomacy. There is a limited public diplomacy resource, and a clear narrative exists that international partners should refrain from interfering in the “positively developing” Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.
• Once Armenia’s current government came under direct scrutiny in these trials, Azerbaijani authorities introduced a presumption—allegedly based on intelligence reports—that captives were administered psychotropic drugs, to discredit their statements as incoherent ramblings.
• Yet when the same captives made other statements under torture that harmed Armenia’s interests, there was no such reaction. This shows that responses from Armenia are, unfortunately, highly political and are made not from the perspective of defending the rights of the captives, but based on the political dynamics of the moment.
• In essence, these “trials” are a condemnation of Artsakh’s right to self-determination. In other words, the entire population of Artsakh, which declared independence and chose self-determination by separating from Azerbaijan, is symbolically placed in the defendant’s seat.
• I am more than certain that life imprisonment will be the chosen punishment, with the symbolic message that the right to self-determination for Artsakh is itself being sentenced to life, rendered irreversible, stripped of its legitimacy, and with the intent to prevent the Armenians of Artsakh from ever uniting around that cause again.
“On the issue of captives, Armenia lacks strong diplomacy.“
According to human rights lawyer Siranush Sahakyan, the current authorities of Armenia, through their political decisions, effectively freed Azerbaijan’s hands to abduct Artsakh’s political and military leadership, as well as other Armenian captives, and to stage a judicial farce against them.
The discussion raises critical questions:
- Do international legal institutions for the protection of human rights have tools or leverage to influence the illegal actions of the Azerbaijani judicial system?
- And more broadly, is it even possible to counteract the ongoing and blatant violations of Armenians’ rights taking place in Azerbaijani courts?
These and related topics were addressed by Siranush Sahakyan, the legal representative of Armenian captives at the European Court of Human Rights, during her appearance on Panorama Interviews.
Here is the second part of the main points from the interview, translated into English:
• Azerbaijan has long-term plans to destroy Artsakh’s statehood. In this long-term process, Azerbaijan sought to carry out punitive actions against those who contributed to the establishment of this statehood, targeting those who played key roles in its formation.
• There is a clearly established legal position in European courts that, in the case of widespread hatred and systematic discrimination against Armenians, Azerbaijani courts cannot be viewed as an effective means of protecting the violated rights of Armenians. This is why international courts release Armenians from the obligation to exhaust Azerbaijani legal remedies and directly examine the cases.
• Regarding violations of the right to life, torture, and abductions of Armenians in Azerbaijan, there are numerous judicial decisions in which the European Court has confirmed that Azerbaijani authorities not only violated individuals’ rights — for example, killing Armenians held in detention — but also failed to investigate the cases properly, disregarding the ethnic identity of the victims and allowing impunity for the perpetrators.
• In Baku’s courts, only pre-approved individuals are allowed to attend. The names of those allowed are confirmed and coordinated with the executive branch beforehand. Anyone outside this list, including civil society representatives, independent observers, and diplomatic staff, is physically barred from entering the courtroom.
• Those on the approved list are mere puppets. People who are presented as victims or witnesses in the “trials” often have no real connection to the events or incidents being addressed.
• International human rights advocates have officially requested entry to the country and to attend the court hearings, but their requests have been denied. Foreign lawyers who are supposed to provide legal support or even observe the proceedings have been blocked.
• Azerbaijan has actively prevented independent observers, researchers, and lawyers from entering the courtroom to hide information. The “trials” are staged, but in reality, serious human rights violations are taking place. By isolating independent experts, Azerbaijan is preventing proper documentation of these violations.
• No specific act of public danger is attributed to Ruben Vardanyan. Instead, his personal legal responsibility for the situation and historical developments is being invoked.
• Some captives have been subjected to enforced disappearance. Azerbaijani representatives refuse to provide any information about their whereabouts or fate, even though there is evidence that Azerbaijani soldiers held them in captivity at certain times. This means that these individuals were under Azerbaijan’s physical control, and the sole responsibility for their fate rests with the Republic of Azerbaijan.
The full interview is available in the attached video (In Armenian).
Siranush Sahakyan: “Berman’s statement is important and unprecedented.”
Abraham Berman, Ruben Vardanyan’s lawyer, recently commented on the ongoing trial in Baku. In his opinion, an analysis of the materials presented by the Azerbaijani Prosecutor’s Office has revealed several serious legal issues.
“I am convinced that the prosecuting party has not sufficiently taken into account the fundamental principles of criminal law, including the requirement to establish a direct causal link between the defendant’s actions and their alleged consequences, as well as the necessity of proving the subjective aspect (criminal intent) of each specific crime. Criminal liability can only arise when the principle of individual responsibility is strictly observed, actions are qualified by the principle of legal clarity, international obligations are respected, and procedural guarantees are fully maintained.”
Siranush Sahakyan, a member of Ruben Vardanyan’s international legal team, commented on Berman’s statements in conversations with “Azatutyun” Radio and 1in TV. She described Berman’s step as unprecedented, emphasizing that not only independent journalists but also human rights defenders and lawyers are suppressed in Azerbaijan. According to the human rights defender, Abraham Berman, in his statement, was guided by the consideration of representing his client’s interests and remained exclusively in the professional domain, trying to prevent possible pressure and persecution against him due to his professional activities. Sahakyan emphasizes: despite Berman refraining from sharp formulations and assessments, he nonetheless states that we are dealing with a baseless accusation. Berman stressed the importance of the presumption of innocence, rights of defense, fair trial, international obligations, and principles of individual responsibility.
“The lawyer, on the one hand, emphasized the accusation’s emptiness, hollowness, and groundlessness, and on the other hand, demonstrated the violations of the right to a fair trial during the trial process. It has been repeatedly voiced that the defense was deprived of opportunities to organize a defense; for example, the accusation was not presented from the outset, the indictment was not provided or translated, or only separate sections were provided, and access to the criminal case materials was restricted on the grounds of being a state secret. We also saw that during the trial, contact between Ruben Vardanyan and his lawyer was limited,” Siranush Sahakyan noted in a conversation with “Azatutyun.”
At recent sessions, several individuals presented as victims and successors of victims testified in court, accusing Vardanyan, who held the position of Artsakh State Minister for only three and a half months and did not coordinate the military sphere, of war crimes. At the last court session, Vardanyan requested that a copy of the indictment be handed over to his family, which the court, however, rejected.
Abraham Berman stated that criminal liability can only arise when the principle of individual responsibility is strictly observed, actions are qualified by the principle of legal clarity, international obligations are respected, and procedural guarantees are fully maintained. “Any violation of these principles calls into question the legality and fairness of the criminal prosecution and trial,” the lawyer declared.
Siranush Sahakyan notes that the statement exhibits a highly professional approach, containing no direct criticism of public authorities. “The statement was about the accusation being groundless, that there are no facts that contain elements of a crime, and for which Ruben Vardanyan could be punished. The acts qualified as criminal offenses are an unavoidable part of everyone’s activity, and if these acts are to receive a criminal legal qualification, then it can threaten each of us,” Sahakyan emphasized.
In his statement, Berman also touched upon individual criminal responsibility. In Azerbaijan, the declaration of Artsakh’s independence is qualified as an impermissible activity, and they are trying to bring criminal legal consequences for all Armenians who, to a certain extent, for a certain period, participated in the administration of the Republic of Artsakh. “This truly contradicts the most important principle – individual responsibility – and it turns out that individuals are being held accountable for the legitimate activities of self-determined Artsakh through a popular vote, even though they did not independently carry out any criminal activity. And here it is interesting that the charitable humanitarian activity carried out in the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh is also qualified as a criminally punishable act. If we are to be guided by that logic, even the International Committee of the Red Cross, which carried out humanitarian activities in Artsakh, could face criminal threats.”
Siranush Sahakyan notes: “If we evaluate Ruben Vardanyan’s actions separately, they do not fall under any corpus delicti, and this is why the criminal accusation lacks certainty and a concrete basis related to criminal legislation.”
In his statement, Abraham Berman also addressed procedural violations, particularly emphasizing the issue of restrictions on the right to defense and speaking about the presumption of innocence.
“During the trial, the subject of discussion is not Mr. Vardanyan’s specific actions, but the general situation. For example, it is not cited that ‘in a specific place,’ ‘in a specific period,’ Mr. Vardanyan gave, for example, such-and-such an illegal order, or that with his involvement, any person was deprived of life, or that he provided military assistance to an entity that could not be legitimate,” Siranush Sahakyan notes, adding that a person cannot be held accountable for general actions; clear acts containing elements of punishable actions must be identified, and the person can be accused of committing such actions.
According to the human rights defender, similar contradictory and factually baseless accusations are also attributed to other imprisoned representatives of Artsakh’s military-political leadership. “Here we have an identical situation. It’s another matter that the other leaders of Artsakh are represented by lawyers from the Azerbaijani Public Defender’s Office, and these lawyers predominantly engage in ‘pocket’ advocacy, often collaborating with law enforcement agencies in their actions. They are unable to organize an effective defense in any way and, consequently, do not come forward with public statements or raise these issues. But, in our assessment, this problem is characteristic not only of Vardanyan’s case but is also general for the trials of all our compatriots.”