Interview with Siranush Sahakyan, the legal representative of Armenian captives in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Mrs. Sahakyan, yesterday, the local lawyer of Ruben Vardanyan, Abraham Berman, made a statement regarding the indictment against Vardanyan. Since this is the first time such a thing has happened, how would you evaluate this phenomenon in general, and what is the main message of the statement?
First, I would like to point out that the very publication of this statement is an unprecedented step. In Azerbaijan, the legal community is under constant pressure, and violations must be egregious for lawyers to speak publicly about problems within the judicial system. Therefore, this statement itself indicates how desperate the situation is for the lawyer trying to organize his client’s defense in Azerbaijan.
Of course, it should be noted that the statement is quite restrained and highly professional; it does not contain direct criticism of the authorities. It’s clear that the lawyer remained within a professional framework to avoid further repressions.
In short, the statement is about the fact that the charges against Vardanyan are completely baseless. There is no evidence that actually contains elements of a crime that would justify punishment in his case. The actions being classified as criminal offenses are in fact an inevitable part of the activities any of us may undertake. If such actions are to be criminalized, then anyone could be at risk. In other words, any one of us could be accused of the “crimes” of which Ruben Vardanyan is accused.
The statement also touches on the issue of individual responsibility. It should be noted that the entire indictment is based on the fact of the self-declared independence of the Republic of Artsakh. The actions of the Artsakh authorities are being fully analyzed, and the declaration of independence is characterized as unacceptable behavior. As a result, there is an attempt to impose criminal liability on all Armenians who, to some extent and during a certain period, were involved in the governance of the Republic of Artsakh.
This clearly contradicts the fundamental principle of individual criminal responsibility. What we’re seeing is that individuals are being held accountable for the lawful activities of a self-determined entity that operated with a public mandate, even though they did not independently commit any criminal acts.
What is also notable is that charitable and humanitarian activities carried out in the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh are being classified as criminally punishable. If we follow this logic, even the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has conducted humanitarian work in Artsakh, could be subject to criminal threats.
The lawyer clearly points out that punishable acts must be precisely defined in the criminal code. When we assess Ruben Vardanyan’s actions individually, they do not fall under any criminal offense, and this is why the indictment lacks clarity and legal basis.
Vardanyan’s lawyer also mentions procedural violations.
Yes, the statement places particular emphasis on the challenges of mounting a defense. Previously, during court hearings, the lawyer had repeatedly raised concerns about limitations on the right to defense. For example, the defense team has been denied full access to the charges, or lacked the necessary tools to prepare a proper defense (such as internet access, the ability to take notes, or to present visual materials). The defense was deprived of all of these. There is also a general issue with the rejection of defense motions. In this situation, we do not see any respect for the principles of adversarial proceedings or equality of arms. It seems that the prosecution dominates the trial process, with all its motions being granted and the outcome essentially predetermined, whereas the defense is deprived of the ability to submit motions or, when they do, of any real chance of having them accepted. This also impacts the right to a fair defense. But I believe this is not the only violation. The presumption of innocence, the right to proper translation, and other procedural guarantees are also mentioned.
In summary, this statement essentially says that there is no real charge and no actual criminal act, and that these trials are not about individuals’ specific behavior, but rather abstract questions related to the conflict. Furthermore, the entire trial has been accompanied by multiple violations of the guarantees of a fair trial.
So, are the charges against Ruben Vardanyan in contradiction with both international conventions and Azerbaijan’s own criminal code?
Yes, you are correct, because no specific act with public danger has been attributed to him. What is being discussed in the trial is not Vardanyan’s concrete actions, but rather the general situation. The self-determination of Artsakh and the various activities of its administration are being labeled by Azerbaijan as illegal. However, the Azerbaijani side is unable to identify specific acts carried out by Vardanyan that contain elements of a crime. For example, they cannot point to a specific place or time when Vardanyan gave an illegal order, or show that someone lost his or her life due to Vardanyan’s involvement. In other words, no such concrete actions have been presented. The indictment discusses a general situation, and there is an attempt to place responsibility for that on Ruben Vardanyan’s shoulders. This is unacceptable under both international law principles and Azerbaijan’s criminal legislation. A person cannot be held liable for collective or general actions; one can only be accused of specific acts that constitute a crime, with proven individual involvement.
