“Justice According to Azerbaijan:” Pastinfo begins analysis of the verdict in the case of Ruben Vardanyan — Part 1
The Armenian news and information agency Pastinfo is launching a series of publications under the title “Justice according to Azerbaijan,” analyzing the indictment and the verdict in the case of Ruben Vardanyan.
At the beginning of September, Siranush Sahakyan, representative of the interests of Armenian prisoners of war at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), announced that English translations of the indictment and verdict in Ruben Vardanyan’s case were published in full for the first time on the Free Armenian Prisoners website. She also called on the professional legal community and research centers to make the case a subject of academic study and professional discussion, which we are now undertaking.
Throughout this series, we will present to our readers the quality of the “trials” that took place and the nature of the case concocted by Azerbaijan’s authoritarian regime against our compatriot. For the professional analysis, we have engaged Taron Simonyan, an international law expert and founding partner of the ELL PARTNERSHIP law firm.
We will present the analysis according to the charges and legal articles.
I. CRIMES AGAINST PEACE AND THE SECURITY OF MANKIND
1. Article 100.1 — Planning, preparation, or launching of an aggressive war
Alleged Act: Participation in the preparation of “plans for new attacks” within a “criminal organization.”
Evidence Underlying the Charge: Evidence substantiating the alleged act is completely absent. Presented as “evidence” are the search warrant/protocol of Ruben Vardanyan’s office in Stepanakert (03.10.2023) and the documents seized there, official correspondence from the State Security Service Military Counterintelligence, and “operational information.” Their content is not disclosed in any manner within the verdict, nor are any causal links between these documents and the alleged act established.
Imposed Penalty: Eleven years of imprisonment, handed down by the verdict.
Taron Simonyan’s Analysis: The conviction is based on assumptions.
The verdict specifies neither the state whose aggression was allegedly planned, nor the plan’s content, date, author, or recipient, and it fails to substantiate any intent to unleash an aggressive war.
Consequently, a private individual who has never held a military or security position is made the subject of a state crime, which constitutes a logical and legal error and violates even Azerbaijan’s own domestic legislation.
None of the essential elements of the crime that are required by Azerbaijani criminal law have been established. The conclusion relies entirely on anonymous documents seized following the arrest — documents whose contents the court itself fails to present, as it is evident that either no such “content” exists or that it does not serve their narrative.
This violates the legal requirements of sufficient proof of guilt and the presumption of innocence, which dictate that a guilty verdict cannot rest on conjecture (Civil Procedure Code, Article 351.2).
Furthermore, none of the “new attacks” attributed to Ruben Vardanyan ever occurred, a fact that the court itself does not dispute.
Despite all this, the court deemed the charge “proven.”
