Ruben’s Trial: Latest Updates

• The first hearing in Ruben’s case was held at the Baku Military Court. It is illegal, in the first instance, and as a matter of international law, for him to be tried in a Military Court as he is a civilian who has never been a commander in or served in the military. The trial was set up to appear that it was open to the public, but international press, foreign embassies, and civil society observers were all barred from attending. Yet Azeri state-run media took and published videos of the proceedings designed to make them appear legitimate.
• A motion to postpone the hearing was granted. This does not, however, even begin to remedy the numerous and ongoing abuses of due process that continue to occur, including that much of the indictment and so-called evidence have been classified as state secrets, materials that have been accessed are in Azerbaijani language (and criminal defendants are entitled to have all materials translated into a language they understand), Ruben has been denied access to counsel of his choosing (his international lawyer has not been allowed to visit him in Azerbaijan), and he has not been provided any details about the alleged testimony of witnesses to be produced against him. Without full access to all alleged evidence in either English and Russian and information about witnesses, it is impossible for Ruben and his counsel to prepare a defense, let alone prepare and present both documentary and testimonial evidence in his defense.
• A motion to consolidate Ruben’s case with other defendants’ cases was denied. There was no explanation provided as to why, even though the charges against the Armenian political prisoners are very similar.
• The court instructed the penitentiary service to provide Ruben with a tablet containing the indictment in Russian and ensure he has access to a translator to review the case materials. But this alone, even if he is given full access to the entire indictment and alleged evidence, is far from sufficient to provide adequate time and facilities to prepare a full defense, including rebuttal documentary and testimonial evidence.
• The next hearing is scheduled for January 27, 2025. As with the previous hearing, it will be officially “open” to the public; however, we anticipate that international press, foreign embassies, and civil society observers will again not be permitted to attend.

• The second hearing, held at the Baku Military Court, was attended by a significant number of people but the trial remained closed to the public.  Security measures at the court entrance were notably stricter compared to the first hearing, with the only observers being allowed on a government-approved list. There is no evidence that independent NGOs or journalists or foreign embassy representatives were allowed to attend the proceeding.
• Before the hearing, Ruben requested a confidential meeting with his lawyer, which was granted after notifying the court secretary. This allowed Ruben and his lawyer to briefly discuss their strategy.
• Several motions were filed last week, including those requesting a postponement of the trial, approving a power of attorney to enable Ruben to file civil suits, including one against the newspaper Bakinskiy Rabochiy for publishing defamatory information, and other general motions. All motions were dismissed without explanation. Regarding the power of attorney, the courtstated it was “outside its jurisdiction.” In addition, the prosecutor accused Ruben and his lawyer of abusing their rights, arguing that their motions should be denied on these grounds.
• Ruben delivered an extensive speech during the hearing, expressing his perspective on the nature of the trial and highlighting procedural violations that occurred during both the investigation and the current proceedings. These violations include:
  1. Being granted only 23 days for reviewing 422 volumes of case materials.
  2. Failure to provide translations of essential documents.
  3. A lack of proper conditions for reviewing video evidence.
  4. Restrictions on exchanging documents with his lawyer, which significantly hindered his defense.
  5. The absence of internet access, which further restricts Ruben’s ability to prepare his defense effectively.
• Ruben once again paid tribute to all those who lost their lives, regardless of ethnicity, and stated that he is defending the truth in their memory.
• Ruben noted that the detention center has long prevented him from meeting with a notary, thus obstructing his ability to file a lawsuit against Bakinskiy Rabochiy. He referenced President Aliyev’s remarks at the Shushi Conference about combating fake news and asserted his right to defend his honor and dignity against false allegations.
• Ruben’s Azerbaijani lawyer plans to file formal requests with the prosecutor’s office and the court to explain why the indictment and released evidence has been classifiedas state secrets and to demand its disclosure to the public, Ruben’s family and his chosen international counsel.
• Ruben formally refused the services of the state-appointed lawyer, who was assigned to him at the previous hearing upon the prosecutor’s request. Ruben explained that this lawyer provided no legal assistance and never visited him in the detention center. However, the prosecution objected, insisting that the state-appointed lawyer must remain.
• The next hearing is scheduled for February 6, 2025 at 10 AM Baku time.

• The third hearing, held again at the Baku Military Court, was focused on the announcement of charges against Ruben.
• The Prosecutor began reading charges dating back to 1988, which have no connection to Ruben, as he was studying at Moscow State University at that time.
• All of the motions made by Ruben’s counsel were denied including:
  – A request for copies of all written documents and materials to be used by the Prosecution at trial;
  – A request for translations of all such written documents and materials into Russian or English, as he does not understand Azeri;
  – A request for access to all referenced video “evidence” with translations, as necessary;
  – A request for regular access to the Internet to access materials necessary to prepare for trial.
• So far, Ruben has only had orally translated for him less than five percent of thousands of pages of the indictment and “evidence,” to be used against him.  And his local counsel has only been able to review 20 percent of the materials.
• In addition, Ruben’s counsel filed a motion to challenge the court-appointed interpreter after discovering serious discrepancies in the translated documents provided to him, e.g.:
  – The translated decision from the preliminary hearing contained references to Belarusian legislation, which is entirely irrelevant to the case.
  – The court clarified that this translation had been done by a different translator, not the one currently interpreting the proceedings. While the motion was denied, the court instructed that a correct and accurate translation be provided.
• Ruben’s counsel also submitted a motion to recuse the judicial panel. The judicial panel stated that this motion would only be considered after the state prosecutor finishes presenting the charges.
• The announcement of charges will continue at the upcoming February 10 and February 13 hearings.

The fourth hearing, held at the Baku Military Court, was mainly focused on the announcement of charges against Ruben. The state prosecutor resumed reading the extensive indictment, which spans numerous volumes and dates back to events unrelated to Ruben.

Other highlights of the hearing:

• Ruben and his legal counsel requested a confidential setting for their discussions. The court granted this request, allowing them to confer privately.
• Ruben Vardanyan filed a motion to recuse the judicial panel, substantiating his request with the following points:
  – Violation of Rights: The panel failed to address procedural rights violations that occurred during the investigation stage.
  – Disregard for International Legal Norms: The court ignored applicable international standards that could have ensured fairness in the trial.
  – Translation Errors: The materials provided contained serious translation errors that misrepresented the proceedings, which were acknowledged by the court itself.
  – Judicial Inconsistencies: The court’s decision during the preparatory hearing reflected only one motion (regarding postponement), while all other motions were dismissed and omitted from the decision.
• Ruben’s lawyer reinforced the motion to recuse the judicial panel by referencing legal norms and personally confirming the procedural violations he witnessed as a participant in the investigation process.
• However, the court did not address the motion during the trial.

The fifth hearing, held at the Baku Military Court, was still mainly focused on the announcement of charges against Ruben. The courtroom was notably filled with students today, presumably from a law faculty.

Highlights of the hearing:

• Ruben’s local lawyer filed a motion requesting a confidential meeting with him (five minutes per lawyer, at Ruben’s request). The court granted this motion.
• After the session resumed, Ruben officially submitted a request to reject the services of the state-appointed lawyer, citing the illegality of his appointment. The state prosecutor acknowledged Ruben’s right to refuse the lawyer but suggested appointing another state lawyer instead. Ruben declined this proposal. The court accepted Ruben’s refusal and granted the motion.To recall, during the preliminary hearing in January, the prosecutor proposed appointing an additional public defender for Ruben under the pretext of protecting the rights of the accused in such a complex case. The prosecutor’s proposal was supported by the court. This appointment was clearly illegitimate, as it violated Ruben’s fundamental right to choose his own defense.
• The defense addressed the court with the following key issues:
  – A newly translated version of the preparatory hearing decision was provided. However, upon review, serious inconsistencies were found again. The document only addressed one motion (the request for postponement), while all other motions were ignored.
  – Despite submitting multiple requests, the defense has not yet received access to the court transcripts.
  – The translated indictment provided in Russian is not certified by an authorized official. The defense demands an officially certified version.

The judge responded that since the reading of the indictment is still ongoing, these issues will be addressed only after its completion.

The sixth hearing, held at the Baku Military Court, was still mainly focused on the reading of charges against Ruben. The hearing was again secret and closed to the public.

Highlights of the hearing:

• Ruben’s defense requested the recusal of the judicial panel due to procedural concerns. In response, the prosecution claimed the request lacked evidentiary basis. The court left the motion without consideration due to insufficient evidence.

• Court’s Questions to the Defense:
  • Why request confidential meetings during sessions instead of beforehand?
    • Defense Response: Prison officers deny access before hearings without explicit court authorization.
  • Why refuse the opportunity to review court protocols?
    • Defense Response: The offer was made only 10 minutes before the session, which was unacceptable.
• The court proposed to continue the announcement of the charges. The prosecution finished reading the indictment. Upon completion of the indictment announcement, the court read out all the charges and the possible penalties for each article.
• The court then asked Ruben whether he considered himself guilty. Three possible answers were provided:

1. Yes, I consider myself guilty.
2. I partially consider myself guilty.
3. I do not consider myself guilty.

Before responding, Ruben requested confidential communication with his attorney.

• Then, Ruben delivered an extensive speech, in which he:
  • Declared that he had committed no crimes.
  • Emphasized the need for a real judicial process, not one replete with egregious due process abuses.
  • Highlighted that he had not received a signed indictment from the prosecutor, investigator, or translator.
  • Stressed his lack of access to case materials and proper translations.
  • Declared he was unable to respond to the court’s request because of the serious due process abuses in his case and inability to understand the nature of the indictment as he hadn’t had a chance to properly familiarize himself with it.
• The next hearing is scheduled for February 25, 2025.

During the seventh hearing, after a week being on a hunger strike, Ruben Vardanyan’s health deteriorated substantially. His blood pressure was recorded at 140/110, a dangerous level requiring medical attention. His local lawyer informed both the court and the doctor that Ruben was in no condition to participate and could collapse in the courtroom. Despite this, the hearing was not postponed, and the proceedings continued. A total of five requests to postpone the hearing were all rejected.

None of Defense Counsel’s other motions were granted, and the ongoing violations of his fundamental rights remain unaddressed.

The only development was that Ruben was finally given the indictment with a certified translation, but it remains a state secret and cannot be shared with his family or counsel abroad.

Following this hearing, Ruben’s international legal counsel, Jared Genser, issued a statement detailing the critical situation. You can read the full statement here: https://freearmenianprisoners.com/armenian-christian-political-prisoner-ruben-vardanyan-faces-urgent-health-threats-in-azerbaijan/.

The next court hearing is scheduled for March 4 at 10:00 AM (Baku time).

The eighth hearing took place against the backdrop of the second week of Ruben Vardanyan’s hunger strike. The session was focused on procedural motions filed by the defense.

Highlights of the hearing:

• The defense submitted four motions:
  – To provide a translation of the decision on bringing charges.
  – To allow access to the video materials of the case.
  – To provide a notice of rights and obligations.
  – To allow access to the court hearing protocols.
  Of these, the court granted the first and fourth motions.
• The judge stated that document review would take place on March 5. However, after the hearing, a court officer informed the defense that it has been postponed until March 8.
• Following the discussion of motions, the prosecution continued questioning regarding the charges. The defense refrained from answering.

Ruben was also visited by the Ombudsman of Azerbaijan, to whom he voiced all his concerns.

The next hearing is scheduled for March 11, 2025.

• The ninth court hearing in the politically motivated trial of Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court on March 11, 2025. The proceedings continued in the same pattern – systemic violations of due process, baseless accusations, and an absence of any credible evidence.
• At the beginning of the hearing, Defense Counsel submitted a motion requesting that Ruben be granted access to key legal resources, including the Criminal Procedure Code of Azerbaijan (CPC), the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan (CC), and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rulings.
  – The prosecution objected, claiming that the CPC does not grant such rights to the accused. The court denied the motion.
  – Defense Counsel filed a new motion to recuse the judicial panel, citing multiple violations of his rights.
  – The court did not review the motion.
• The prosecution then presented additional so-called witnesses, none of whom Ruben knew. These individuals made fabricated claims that were not supported by any documentary or material evidence. The judicial panel simply allowed them to make generalized allegations. For example, one witness claimed that he heard Ruben recruited young men to serve in as mercenaries but presented no specific information about this allegation.  Another “victim” witness claimed he was injured by a landmine.  And another “victim” witness in the Azerbaijan military claimed to have been injured in Kelbajar during their military service.  But none of these witnesses had met Ruben, seen Ruben, or had any connection to Ruben, and none had any evidence to connect Ruben to the any of these allegations beyond alleging he was responsible.
• The next court session is scheduled for March 18, 2025.

The tenth hearing, held at the Baku Military Court, was mainly focused on the questioning of the alleged victims. The hearing was again closed to the public.

Highlights of the hearing:

• At the beginning of the hearing, Defense counsel submitted a motion requesting access to all hearing transcripts and audio recordings of past sessions. The judicial panel granted the motion.  It is important to emphasize, however, that there have been large discrepancies between what has been happening in the hearings and partial transcripts that have been released, and that Defense counsel has repeatedly asking for this information over many months.  So the simply granting of this motion itself is only a first step and does not mean the Government has met its legal obligations to provide complete and accurate transcripts and audio recordings.
• After the motion was granted, the alleged victims were summoned for questioning. They reported being wounded while serving in the Azerbaijani military in territories previously controlled by Armenian forces, as a result of enemy fire. They stated that they knew of Ruben Vardanyan from media publications and social media. Yet none of them knew Ruben personally, had ever met him, had any personal knowledge of his activities in Nagorno-Karabakh, or had any oral or documentary evidence to connect Ruben to the Armenian forces they claimed were responsible for their injuries.
• In addition, the court read out medical examination reports for each victim and they answered prosecution questions about their service locations, the attacks, and the nature of their injuries. Despite having presented literally no evidence to connect Ruben to their injuries, they all demanded the harshest possible sentence be imposed on him.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for April 1.

The eleventh hearing in the criminal case against Ruben Vardanyan was held at the Baku Military Court. As in previous sessions, the hearing was closed to the public.

Key Developments:

• At the beginning of the session, the judicial panel acknowledged receiving several motions from the defense. However, it announced that formal responses to these motions would be provided within 30 days. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan stipulates in Article 122.2 that motions must be reviewed “without delay.” The judicial panel’s additional delay to address motions submitted by Defense Counsel further impedes Ruben’s right to a fair trial.
• A group of alleged victims was summoned for questioning. As in previous hearings, none of them had ever met Ruben Vardanyan, had any personal knowledge of his activities in Nagorno-Karabakh, nor any evidence directly or indirectly connecting him to their accusations. They stated that they knew of him only through media and social networks.
• The victims testified that they were injured by sniper fire and shelling while serving in the military in Kalbajar and Aghdam. They responded to questions from the prosecution regarding the locations of their service and the nature of their injuries. The forensic medical examinations of the victims were also presented to the court, but no evidence was presented to connect Ruben to the alleged incidents.
• Defense Counsel reiterated its position of non-participation, citing egregious violations of Ruben’s rights.

The next hearing is scheduled for April 8.

Based on information provided by Defense Councel Avraam Berman

The twelfth hearing in the criminal case against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As with previous sessions, the hearing was closed to the public.

Key Developments:

• At the beginning of the hearing, Defense Counsel Avraam Berman reminded the court of a statement submitted to the Court on March 10threquesting access to audio recordings attached to the hearing transcripts of January 17th and 27th, which have not been received as of April 8th. The court responded by stating that the materials would be provided.
• A new group of alleged victims was summoned for questioning. As in prior sessions, none of them had ever met Ruben Vardanyan personally or had any direct knowledge of his activities. All stated they knew of him only through media reports and social media.
• The victims testified to being wounded during military service in various regions.
• The court also presented forensic medical reports for each of the individuals questioned.
• Despite providing no evidence connecting Ruben Vardanyan to the incidents described, all victims requested the court to impose the harshest sentence.
• Defense Counsel reiterated its position of non-participation due to continued violations of the defendant’s rights and the lack of adversarial proceedings.

The next hearing is scheduled for April 15.

Representatives of the local press were present.

This hearing in the Baku Military Court was closed to the public. Only individuals on a pre-approved list of the Government were admitted.

At the start of the hearing, Defense Counsel Avraam Berman addressed the court to clarify a misrepresentation made by local media. He explained that the defense had not requested a re-examination of the court hearing transcripts, but rather access to the transcripts and corresponding audio recordings – materials that have still not been fully provided, aside from two partial transcripts from January.
He warned that continued misreporting by media outlets could result in legal action.

A new group of alleged victims was summoned for questioning. As in prior sessions, they claimed to have sustained injuries during military clashes in various regions, allegedly as a result of actions by Armenian forces. However, none of the victims had any personal knowledge of Ruben Vardanyan or direct evidence linking him to the incidents they described.

The Court read out the medical examination reports for each victim and the Prosecutor asked questions about their service locations, the attacks, and the nature of their injuries, but failed to connect these facts to Ruben. Again, though the witness testimony constituted hearsay, the judicial panel did not rule this testimony inadmissible or exclude it from the record. The judicial panel failed to affirmatively apply any of the most basic requirements under Azerbaijan law for the acceptance of the presentation of evidence.

Defense Counsel reaffirmed its position of non-participation in the questioning process, citing egregious violations of Ruben Vardanyan’s rights and the failure to uphold the principle of adversarial proceedings. Counsel emphasized that this refusal to participate should not be misconstrued as an absence of legal arguments, but rather a protest against the illegitimacy of the trial process.

The next hearing is scheduled for April 22, 2025.

Based on information provided by Ruben Vardanyan’s local defense counsel, Avraam Berman.

The fourteenth hearing in the criminal case against Ruben Vardanyan was held at the Baku Military Court. As in previous sessions, the hearing was closed to the public. Only individuals on a pre-approved list of the Government were admitted.

Key Developments:

• At the beginning of the hearing, defense counsel reiterated a previous request regarding access to court transcripts and audio recordings. Although partial materials from the January 17 and 27 hearings were finally made available on April 21, discrepancies were found between the transcripts and recordings. The defense requested that its official comments be included in the record and asked the court to issue a ruling addressing these discrepancies. The court postponed review of the motion, citing the disability of the victims scheduled to testify that day and the difficulty of summoning them again.
• A group of so-called victims was then questioned. As in previous hearings, none of them had any personal connection to Ruben Vardanyan, nor any evidence to tie him to their injuries beyond alleging he was responsible. Most testimonies related to landmine explosions or injuries sustained during military operations in areas formerly under Armenian control.
• Forensic medical reports for each victim were also presented to the court.

The next hearing is scheduled for April 29, 2025.

Based on information provided by Ruben Vardanyan’s local defense counsel, Avraam Berman.

The fifteenth hearing in the criminal case against Ruben Vardanyan was held at the Baku Military Court. As in all previous sessions, the hearing was closed to the public. Only individuals pre-approved by the Azerbaijani government were allowed to attend.

Key Developments:

At the beginning of the hearing, Ruben Vardanyan addressed the court to emphasize continuing violations of his fundamental rights. He pointed to the court’s refusal to consider approximately 20 motions submitted by the defense, its failure to provide access to all hearing transcripts other than those from January 17 and 27, and its inaction on a formal statement submitted regarding inaccuracies in the January 17 and 27 transcripts.

Defense counsel Avraam Berman submitted a motion to recuse the judicial panel, citing:

• Ignored Requests: Two information requests submitted by the defense on March 19 remain unanswered. The court has claimed a 30-day response period, but this delay lacks any legal basis under Azerbaijani law.
• Deferred Motions: An official comment submitted on April 22 regarding a ruling mentioned in the January 27 transcript was not addressed, despite sufficient time remaining in the session. This, along with similar delays, indicates a lack of judicial impartiality.
• Unanswered Appeals: Seven letters submitted by Ruben to the court via the Prosecutor General’s Office have received no response.

Ruben supported the motion for recusal. The prosecution opposed it, arguing that procedural requirements had been followed. The court ultimately rejected the motion, stating that no sufficient grounds were presented to demonstrate bias.

Testimonies from so-called victims:

A group of alleged victims was then summoned to testify. They described various incidents involving landmine explosions, shelling, and sabotage operations allegedly conducted by Armenian forces or armed groups in the past.

As in previous sessions, none of the so-called victims had any connection to Ruben Vardanyan, nor did they present any evidence linking him directly or indirectly to the incidents described. Nonetheless, they all called for the harshest possible sentence. Again, though the witness testimony constituted hearsay, the judicial panel did not rule this testimony inadmissible or exclude it from the record.  The judicial panel failed to affirmatively apply any of the most basic requirements under Azerbaijani law for the acceptance of the presentation of evidence.

Forensic medical reports related to the alleged victims were presented to the court.

The next hearing is scheduled for May 6, 2025.

You can read an excerpt from the politically motivated indictment against Ruben Vardanyan here.

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

On May 6, 2025, another hearing was held at the Baku Military Court regarding the criminal case against Ruben Vardanyan. The session, like previous ones, was held behind closed doors without public access.

 Key developments:

• At the beginning of the session, defense counsel again submitted a motion to recuse the judicial panel, highlighting serious procedural irregularities. The defense pointed out contradictions in the Court’s handling of motions previously submitted on January 27, 2025. Specifically, the Court had falsely asserted in later proceedings that all defense motions were reviewed on January 27, while court transcripts and documents clearly show that only two motions were considered at that time. Defense argued this manipulation indicated a significant breach of transparency and impartiality.
• The prosecution suggested the Court dismiss the recusal motion, claiming the omissions in hearing transcripts does not constitute grounds for recusal and that the defense was deliberately trying to prolong proceedings without valid grounds.
• The Court dismissed the defense’s motion for recusal without consideration, stating the defense did not provide concrete evidence of judicial bias as required by Azerbaijani law.
• Testimonies were heard from several alleged victims. Consistent with prior hearings, none of the testimonies presented evidence linking Ruben Vardanyan directly or indirectly to any incidents. Witnesses described injuries from artillery fire, sniper attacks, and landmines, attributing them to actions by Armenian forces or unidentified armed groups in territories previously controlled by Armenian forces.
• Forensic medical examination reports of these alleged victims were also presented to the court.

The next hearing is scheduled for May 13, 2025.

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

On May 13, 2025, the Baku Military Court held another hearing in the criminal case against Ruben. The trial was again closed to the public.

Key developments:

• At the outset, Ruben filed a motion to recuse the panel of judges. The prosecution responded by asserting that the defendant’s rights, as stipulated by the Criminal Procedure Code of Azerbaijan, had been upheld. They further contended that the Defense had not presented concrete evidence indicating any bias or vested interest by the judicial panel in the criminal prosecution. Consequently, the Prosecution requested the court to dismiss the recusal motion without consideration.
• The alleged victims present during the session also urged the court to reject the recusal motion. The judicial panel subsequently announced its decision to dismiss the motion without consideration. Presiding Judge Zeynal Agayev asserted that the Defense had failed to provide specific and reliable evidence demonstrating the judicial panel’s interest in the criminal prosecution, as required by Azerbaijani law.
• Following this, the court proceeded with the examination of alleged victims. As with all all the prior alleged victims, forensic medical examinations were presented as well.  But also as in all prior cases of alleged victims, none presented any evidence that they had ever met Ruben or had any evidence he was responsible for their injuries. Instead, they claimed they had heard from the Azerbaijan Government and media that Ruben was responsible.

The next court hearing is scheduled for May 20, 2025.

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

On May 20, 2025, the Baku Military Court held another session in the criminal trial against Ruben. The trial was again closed to the public.

Key Developments

1. Defense Motion for Verification of Document Translations

At the start of the hearing, the Defense submitted a motion requesting verification of the accuracy of translations for documents provided during the investigation and trial. The Defense identified several discrepancies in translation, including differences between the original indictment and its translation concerning dates and descriptions of alleged events. Additional concerns were raised over inaccuracies in the translation of the preparatory hearing’s decisions. The Defense requested independent verification of translations, excluding translators who initially performed them.

The Prosecution objected to the motion, arguing that the translations were conducted by certified professional translators who confirmed accuracy with their signatures. The Prosecution requested denial of the motion.

The court partially satisfied the defense motion, agreeing only to provide translations of requested documents. However, it rejected the request for independent verification of previously translated materials.

2.  Defense Motion for Recusal of Judicial Panel

Following the denial of their translation verification request, Ruben Vardanyan and the Defense filed another motion to recuse the current judicial panel. The Defense argued that the court’s repeated refusal to ensure accurate translation of essential documents indicated bias and compromised the fairness and impartiality of the trial.

The Prosecution responded by asserting that the rights of the defendant have been fully observed under Azerbaijani criminal procedure laws. It argued the Defense had provided no concrete evidence of bias or conflict of interest and requested that the recusal motion be dismissed.

After deliberation, presiding judge announced that the recusal motion was dismissed without consideration. The Judicial Panel stated that the Defense did not present specific and credible evidence of judicial bias, as required by Azerbaijani law.

3.  Testimonies from Alleged Victims and Their Legal Successors

The court continued hearing testimonies from individuals identified by the Prosecution as victims and their legal successors. As in previous sessions, none of the testimonies provided any direct or indirect connection linking Ruben Vardanyan to the described incidents. Individuals described injuries resulting from artillery shelling, mortar attacks, missile strikes, and gunfire, attributing responsibility broadly to Armenian armed forces or unidentified illegal groups operating in territories formerly under Armenian control. Forensic medical examination reports concerning the alleged victims were also presented.

The next hearing is scheduled for May 27, 2025.

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The Baku Military Court held another hearing in Ruben’s ongoing criminal case.  As in all prior sessions, the hearings were closed to the public.

At the beginning of the hearing, the presiding Judge explained the rights and obligations of the victims participating in the proceedings for the first time, as stipulated by the law.

The Prosecution examined 28 alleged victims (and the legal successor of one deceased alleged victim) who claimed they were injured in a wide variety of ways such as Armenian armed formations, a Kornet missile, landmines, anti-tank missile, an artillery strike, gunfire, mortar shell explosion, and sniper fire.  During the session, forensic medical examination reports concerning the alleged victims were also presented.

In their testimonies, all alleged victims emphasized that they did not personally know Ruben Vardanyan and had only heard about him through the media and social networks.  None provided any evidence that Ruben had any connections to the incidents that allegedly resulted in their injuries.  Indeed, in almost all of these testimonies the allegations were that these were attacks undertaken by the Armed Forces of Armenia.  Yet no evidence was presented that Ruben had ever been a member of, had command and control of, or had been in communication with any unit of the Armed Forces of Armenia.

The next court session is scheduled for June 3, 2025.