The Baku court has rejected the motion to recuse Islam Aghakarimov, the interpreter of Ruben Vardanyan, the former State Minister of Artsakh, who is being unlawfully held.
The only media allowed to attend the “trials”, the Azerbaijan State News Agency AZERTAC today reported: “It was then noted that during one of the previous sessions, the accused Ruben Vardanyan had filed a motion objecting to the interpreter Islam Agakarimov, who had previously participated in the preparatory court session. It was stated that Islam Agakarimov had been summoned and was present at today’s hearing.
“Both the accused Ruben Vardanyan and his defense lawyer Emil Babishov requested that the court grant their objection.
“Islam Agakarimov stated that he had translated the decision of the preparatory court session and that there had been only one mechanical error in that translation, which did not affect the substance of the decision, did not lead to any changes, and did not distort its meaning in any way. In response to a question from presiding judge Zeynal Agayev, Agakarimov said the error had occurred accidentally and mechanically and that he had not made it intentionally.
“Nasir Bayramov, head of the department at the Prosecutor General’s Office responsible for upholding the state accusation, noted that the defense had raised this motion several times before. Due to valid reasons, the interpreter had been unable to attend previous hearings, so it had not been possible to ascertain his position earlier. At today’s session, the interpreter confirmed that the error was mechanical and technical in nature and was not committed deliberately.
“Prosecutor Bayramov emphasized that, under the Criminal Procedure Code, an objection to an interpreter can be considered justified and granted only on grounds explicitly listed in the law. A mechanical or technical error is not among those grounds. He therefore requested the court to reject the defense’s objection to the interpreter.
“After hearing the parties, the court retired to deliberate. Upon returning, the court announced its decision: the objection was not upheld.
“The court stressed that the grounds for challenging an interpreter in criminal proceedings are specifically defined by criminal procedure legislation, and none of those grounds were found to apply to Islam Agakarimov in the present case.”