Facts That Cannot Be Ignored: Gross Violations of Ruben Vardanyan’s Rights

Facts That Cannot Be Ignored: Gross Violations of Ruben Vardanyan’s Rights

Attorney and representative of Armenian prisoners of war before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Siranush Sahakyan, has provided clarifications regarding the egregious violations of Ruben Vardanyan’s rights taking place before the courts in Baku.

The human rights defender stated that, in flagrant breach of fair trial guarantees, particularly the principle of equality of arms and adversarial hearing, both the investigative authorities and the court have disregarded all motions filed by the defendant, conducting a one-sided, predetermined investigation. Moreover, the judges denied Ruben full access to the case materials, while simultaneously incorporating falsified records into the case file. Jurisdictional safeguards were also violated: the case was referred to a military tribunal despite the fact that Ruben is a civilian and has never held any affiliation with law enforcement or security services.

“As a result, the proceedings have created a fundamentally unfair scenario in which the defendant is stripped of any meaningful opportunity to contest the charges or assert his innocence. In such conditions, the very notion of a fair trial is reduced to a façade, entirely devoid of substance” Sahakyan emphasized.

This publication sets out a detailed account of grave human rights violations committed by the investigative authorities and judiciary of Azerbaijan against Ruben Vardanyan, a political prisoner unlawfully detained since September 2023. The factual findings outlined below reveal a brazen and systematic denial of his right to a fair trial.

An examination of the case materials relating to the criminal proceedings brought against Mr Vardanyan, together with the conduct of the trial before the Baku Military Court, exposes numerous and severe breaches of both binding international human rights standards and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (CPC RA).

The cumulative effect of these violations constitutes a flagrant denial of justice and underscores the Azerbaijani authorities’ deliberate and systematic disregard for due process, rendering the politically motivated nature of the proceedings against Mr Vardanyan indisputable.

1. Violation of Procedural Norms in Charging Ruben Vardanyan as a Defendant, and Violation of His Fundamental Right to Be Informed of the Charges and His Rights (Violation of Articles 90.7.2, 224, 224.3 of the CPC RA)

Upon his detention, Ruben Vardanyan was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him, nor was he provided with any formal documentation outlining his rights—a breach of his procedural guarantees, particularly in light of his right to prepare an effective defence.

Following the formal filing of charges, he was likewise not served with a written notification of his rights, despite this being an express legal requirement under Azerbaijani law.

These violations are clearly evidenced in the case materials:

  • Page 144, Volume 422 — the “Notification of Rights” is unsigned;
  • Page 148, Volume 422 — the “Notification of Rights and Obligations” was never served;
  • Page 151, Volume 422 — the “Notice of Explanation” is incomplete;
  • Page 157, Volume 422 — no explanation of “Rights and Obligations” is recorded.

Moreover, the investigative authorities failed in their duty to communicate the substance of new charges brought against Mr Vardanyan. The decision dated 5 December 2024 was not served upon him within the 48-hour timeframe prescribed by the CPC RA. Instead, it was only disclosed months later, on 7 March 2025, and only upon the initiative of the defence through a formal motion.

2. All Motions Filed by Ruben Vardanyan Were Ignored by the Investigative Authorities and the Court (Article 28.4 of the CPC RA)

Pursuant to Article 28.4 of the CPC RA, the investigative authorities and the court are under a legal obligation to examine all motions and requests submitted by the defendant and his legal counsel, as well as to consider any complaints alleging procedural violations.

Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights requires that decision-making procedures uphold the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, and incorporate adequate safeguards to protect the rights and interests of the accused.

These fundamental guarantees were plainly disregarded in Ruben Vardanyan’s case. In particular:

  • The administration of the pre-trial detention facility is obligated, among other things, to ensure that a detainee has the opportunity to access notary services (Article 161.1.17 of the CPC RA). Mr Vardanyan, both personally and through his defence counsel, repeatedly submitted motions requesting the issuance of a power of attorney authorising a lawyer to initiate civil proceedings in an Azerbaijani court against the newspaper Bakinsky Rabochy, which had published defamatory material damaging to his honour and reputation. These requests were denied without any basis. Following the complaint, the court dismissed the request on the ground that such matters of accessing notarial services were “not within its competence,” despite its clear authority to ensure that the accused is afforded the means necessary to exercise his civil and legal rights while in detention. In response to the persistent and systemic disregard for defence submissions, the defence team filed a motion for the recusal of the judicial panel. This motion, too, was summarily denied – further underscoring the lack of impartiality and procedural fairness in the conduct of the trial.
  • The motion for the recusal of the investigator, submitted by Mr Vardanyan on 30 October 2024 in light of numerous procedural violations and breaches of his rights, was arbitrarily rejected.
  • The official decision setting out additional charges against Mr Vardanyan, dated 5 December 2024, was not served on him either on the day of issuance or at any point thereafter. Furthermore, no Russian-language translation of the decision was provided, in direct contravention of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation in a language he understands.
  • The indictment in the criminal proceedings against Mr Vardanyan lacks the signatures of the competent prosecutorial authorities and, as such, cannot be regarded as a valid legal instrument under domestic procedural law.
  • Although the indictment comprises six volumes, drafted entirely in Azerbaijani, a Russian translation was only provided to Mr Vardanyan at 20:37 on the evening preceding the initial court hearing on 15 January 2025. This belated disclosure constitutes a gross breach of Articles 292.4 and 298.4 of the CPC RA, as it deprived the accused of a meaningful opportunity to familiarise himself with the charges. Moreover, the translation itself was riddled with substantive errors, thereby further obstructing Mr Vardanyan’s understanding of the accusations.
  • The case file also contains falsified records and procedural documents, undermining the integrity of the proceedings.

3. Gross Violations During the Judicial Proceedings Against Ruben Vardanyan

Despite Azerbaijan’s status as a State Party to both the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the judicial proceedings instituted against Ruben Vardanyan have been marked by persistent violations of due process:

  • The criminal case against Mr Vardanyan is being adjudicated not by a court of general jurisdiction, as required under applicable domestic and international standards, but by the Baku Military Court (a three-judge panel chaired by Judge Zeynal Agayev). International human rights law recognises the universally applicable principle that military tribunals must not exercise jurisdiction over civilians. The referral of Mr Vardanyan’s case to a military court, in this context, is itself indicative of a lack of judicial independence and constitutes a manifest violation of his right to an impartial hearing.
  • Although the proceedings have been formally declared open to the public, in practice, all hearings have been conducted behind closed doors and under conditions of strict control. Access to the courtroom has been systematically denied to foreign journalists and independent international observers, undermining the transparency and public scrutiny essential to a fair trial.
  • The court further denied Mr Vardanyan access to the indictment and broader case file, in violation of Articles 284–288 of the CPC RA. Repeated motions submitted by the defence seeking additional time to familiarise with the voluminous material—comprising 422 volumes, or approximately 105,000 pages—were summarily dismissed. Mr Vardanyan informed the court that he had been afforded only 17 working days to review the entirety of the case materials. The court granted only a ten-day extension, a portion of which included public holidays, effectively reducing the extension to just four additional working days—an absurdly inadequate timeframe in the circumstances.
  • The court also failed to comply with the procedural requirements governing the conduct of preliminary hearings, as set out in Articles 299 and 300 of the CPC RA. The preliminary hearing held on 27 January 2025 was marred by significant procedural irregularities, depriving Mr Vardanyan of the ability to exercise critical procedural rights.
  • The court violated the requirements for holding a preliminary hearing (Articles 299–300 of the CPC RA). The preliminary hearing (of January 27, 2025) was conducted with significant procedural violations, resulting in Ruben Vardanyan being unable to exercise his key rights. Article 299 of the CPC RA requires that the preliminary hearing address several foundational matters, including:
  • the legality and completeness of the pre-trial investigation;
  • the exclusion of inadmissible evidence;
  • the consideration of motions and recusals;
  • grounds for terminating or suspending proceedings;
  • a review of the preventive measure in place;
  • the compilation of a list of admissible evidence; and
  • the identification of witnesses to be summoned.

In Mr Vardanyan’s case, none of these matters were meaningfully addressed. The hearing was conducted under conditions where the defence had been denied sufficient time to review the case materials, no proper translation of key procedural documents was provided, and the court failed even to ask whether the defence intended to raise motions or statements. Moreover, as set out in Article 300 of the CPC RA, the decision issued following the preliminary hearing must be provided to the defendant and his counsel within three days. In Vardanyan’s case, this decision was provided in violation of the prescribed deadline and in a distorted translation, further evidencing the systemic nature of these violations.  Thus, the court failed to fulfill the procedural obligations established for this stage, thereby depriving the defendant of the right to an active defense at a crucial phase, when the foundations for subsequent proceedings are laid. A violation of procedural rights at the preliminary hearing stage effectively distorts the entire further process.

  • Failure to comply with the timeframes for providing court decisions.

The court’s decision following the hearing on January 27, 2025, was provided to Mr. Vardanyan with significant delay (specifically, on February 5, 2025), whereas Article 300.4 of the CPC RA requires that it be delivered to Ruben within three days.

  • Mr. Vardanyan was denied the opportunity to prepare his defence.

The Baku Military Court not only refused to adjourn the hearing scheduled for 27 January 2025—thereby compelling the trial to proceed on the merits—but also failed to ensure that Mr Vardanyan and his legal counsel were afforded the necessary time and facilities to prepare an adequate defence. Multiple motions submitted by Mr Vardanyan and his attorney were either ignored or summarily dismissed, including requests:

  • to access specialised legal literature and Internet resources relevant to the preparation of the defence;
  • to review “classified” video materials forming part of the evidentiary record;
  • to receive legal documents and defence materials from counsel without censorship or prior inspection by detention authorities;
  • to be guaranteed timely access to accurate Russian-language translations of procedural documents and case materials.

Not only were these motions arbitrarily denied, but the fact that they were filed was omitted from the official records of the court hearings.

Moreover, in further violation of fundamental procedural guarantees, neither Mr Vardanyan nor his counsel was provided with transcripts of the court proceedings—effectively impeding their ability to review the conduct of the hearings and prepare subsequent motions, appeals, or objections.

  • Ignoring Motions and Statements by Ruben and His Defense Counsel in Court Rulings.

Ruben’s motion requesting the court to ensure that the administration of the pre-trial detention facility provide him with access to notary services in order to execute a power of attorney for filing a civil lawsuit was denied, with the court claiming that such requests are “not within the court’s competence.”

As this and all other motions by Ruben were grossly and unjustifiably ignored, Ruben and his defense counsel submitted a motion for the recusal of the judicial panel. This request was also denied.

  • Denial of Procedural Equality (Articles 9 and 121.1.3 of the CPC RA)

More than twenty motions submitted by Mr Ruben Vardanyan were left unexamined by the court. While the judicial panel maintained that these submissions had been “considered,” the official hearing transcripts reveal no record of such consideration, exposing a clear discrepancy between the court’s assertions and the documented proceedings. Notably, the defence’s application for correction of the hearing transcript dated 27 January 2025 was itself disregarded, underscoring the court’s unwillingness to rectify the procedural record.

Despite the presence of compelling evidence of systemic procedural violations and the infringement of Mr Vardanyan’s rights, approximately ten motions for the recusal of the judicial panel were either summarily dismissed or entirely ignored. The court repeatedly cited a purported “lack of evidence of the panel’s interest” as grounds for rejection—an explanation devoid of factual or legal basis. Some motions, such as the recusal request dated 11 March 2025, were simply not addressed at all.

  • Invalidity of Procedural Protocols Due to Fundamental Defects (Article 134 of the CPC RA)

The case file contains procedural protocols marred by serious violations that, under applicable legal standards, render them null and void. In particular, several protocols—including interrogation records dated 30 October 2024 and 5 December 2024—are devoid of the requisite signatures of both the defendant and his defence counsel.

  • Manipulation of Court Records and Misrepresentation of Procedural History (Article 51.7 of the CPC RA)

The official transcript of the court session dated 6 February 2025 falsely asserts that all eight motions submitted by Mr Ruben Vardanyan and his defence counsel were considered during the preliminary hearing held on 27 January 2025. In reality, only two of those motions were addressed. This misrepresentation is directly contradicted by both the court’s own decision from the preliminary hearing and the excerpt from the protocol decision of 27 January 2025.

The manipulation of procedural records did not stop there. For example, the court failed to consider or respond to the written comments and objections submitted by Mr Vardanyan and his defence counsel regarding the transcript of the hearing held on 22 April 2025.

  • Violation of the Principle of Public Hearings and Transparency (Article 27 of the CPC RA)

At every stage of the proceedings, representatives of the international community were systematically denied access to the courtroom. Attendance was restricted exclusively to pro-government media outlets operating under the control of the Azerbaijani authorities, thereby depriving the trial of independent observation and scrutiny.

In several instances, these state-affiliated media outlets misrepresented or selectively reported the actual content of statements made by Mr Ruben Vardanyan and his legal counsel, particularly in relation to procedural motions, recusal requests, and other substantive submissions. This selective and distorted reporting further undermined the transparency of the proceedings.

The violation of the principle of a public hearing is further underscored by the court’s inconsistent approach to the classification of the proceedings. Although the trial was formally declared to be open to the public, the court repeatedly invoked the alleged confidentiality of certain materials and the presence of “classified” evidence in the case file—most notably in its written response to the attorney’s inquiry dated 19 March 2025. Such assertions were used as a pretext to exclude independent observers and shield the proceedings from international oversight, in clear contravention of the right to a public trial.

4. Key Requests by the Defense Necessary for a Fair Trial That Remained Unanswered

As of February 19, 2025, the following legitimate requests by the defense had not been granted, making it impossible to ensure an effective defense in court:

  • Request for conditions allowing proper review of the case materials;
  • Request for copies of key documents important for the defense;
  • Request for official translations of critical procedural documents;
  • Request for the right to review all court hearing transcripts (motions dated January 30 and February 12, 2025);
  • Request for the right to view video materials and other digital media contained in the case file;
  • Request for the right of counsel to transmit documents to and from the defendant (in accordance with the Law on Advocacy);
  • Request for the defendant to have access to the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan and international legal standards via electronic resources;
  • Request for international legal counsel to be permitted to attend court hearings (Article 310.3 of the CPC RA);
  • Request for the provision of an official indictment signed by an authorized person;
  • Request for the opportunity to allow members of Ruben Vardanyan’s family to review the indictment;
  • Request for the right of the accused to study the case materials with a translator from 10:00 to 18:00 (Article 91.5.22 of the CPC RA).

Requests to the SGB Pre-Trial Detention Facility that were ignored:

  • Request to arrange for a notary to visit the detention center;
  • Request for the return of documents seized from the attorney during the inspection on January 15, 2025, during a visit with the defendant.

Significance of the Identified Violations

Why This Matters: The Impact of Procedural Violations on the Fairness of the Proceedings

The violations of the Criminal Procedure Code identified in the case of Ruben Vardanyan are not mere formalities—they directly affect his fundamental right to a fair trial, guaranteed by both Azerbaijani law and international legal standards.

The denial of access to case materials, the severely limited time afforded to review voluminous documentation, and the systematic refusal to consider defence motions have made it impossible for Mr Vardanyan to mount an effective defence. Collectively, these violations have created a legal environment in which he is effectively stripped of any meaningful opportunity to contest the charges against him or to present exculpatory evidence. The adversarial nature of the proceedings has been entirely eroded.

International organizations, including the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the French Senate, as well as a number of NGOs and experts, have recognized Ruben Vardanyan as a political prisoner and called for his release. His detention and trial are viewed as part of a broader campaign by Azerbaijan against ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh.

Respect for procedural guarantees and the right to a fair trial is not a discretionary matter; it is a foundational element of the rule of law and a core indicator of a state’s commitment to human rights. International vigilance and intervention in this case are imperative not only to secure justice for Ruben Vardanyan, but also to uphold the integrity of the international legal order and to ensure protection for other unlawfully detained Armenians

Conclusion

The cumulative procedural violations outlined above demonstrate unequivocally that Mr Ruben Vardanyan has not been afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself before a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal. He has been denied access to essential case materials, stripped of his fundamental procedural rights, and isolated from international observation and support.

This approach constitutes a gross violation of both Azerbaijani domestic law and international fair trial standards. It undermines the very notion of justice and exposes the proceedings as a politically driven exercise lacking any legitimacy.

We therefore call upon international organisations, human rights mechanisms, and world leaders to take urgent notice of this case and to press the Republic of Azerbaijan to comply with its international obligations, most notably, the right to a fair trial as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and other relevant international instruments.