The 20-year prison sentence handed down to Ruben Vardanyan in Baku is a politicized process that contradicts the fundamental principles of international law. This was stated by the representative of Armenian prisoners’ interests at the European Court of Human Rights, advocate Siranush Sahakyan.
20 Years of Imprisonment — But for What?
According to Sahakyan, at this stage only the punishment measure is known — 20 years of imprisonment — but the substantive part of the verdict has not yet been fully examined.
“We know that Ruben Vardanyan is charged with over 400 episodes — from financing terrorism to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Even charitable initiatives have been qualified as criminal activity,” the advocate noted.
According to her, some episodes have been reclassified, but it will only become clear which acts have been deemed proven and in what combination the punishment was applied once the defense has the opportunity to familiarize itself with the full text of the verdict. At present, according to Sahakyan, the family has still not received the complete text of the verdict.
She also reported that excerpts from verdicts in other cases — a total of 15 trials — have been obtained, but information on Vardanyan’s case still needs supplementation.
The Right to Self-Determination — as a “Crime”
Sahakyan emphasizes that the general approach underlying this and other cases is as follows: any action carried out under the auspices of the self-determined entity of Artsakh is viewed by Azerbaijani authorities as the activity of an “illegal regime” and, therefore, as a crime.
“This fundamentally contradicts international law. Artsakh’s right to self-determination has not been rejected by international law. Moreover, Artsakh’s unilateral declaration of independence has not been recognized as an act violating international law,” she stressed.
According to the advocate, there is no precedent in international practice where leaders who exercised the right to self-determination have been held criminally liable for terrorism or war crimes solely on the grounds that they acted in that status.
Collective Responsibility?
Sahakyan also finds alarming the fact that the verdict is based even on events from the 1990s. In her assessment, this indicates not individualized criminal responsibility, but the attribution of collective responsibility to specific individuals.
“Criminal law requires specifying the concrete actions and guilt of the person within each episode. Here, however, we see actions from different periods being generalized and attributed to a specific person without sufficient individualization,” she noted.
In the advocate’s conviction, the entire process is politicized, and in a symbolic sense, it is not only the specific individual who is being condemned, but also Artsakh’s right to self-determination in the person of its leaders.
Decision Not to Appeal
Addressing why the defense is not preparing to appeal the verdict in higher instances, Sahakyan explained that the decision stems from distrust in the process. According to her, the defense team does not want to become part of a process that, in their assessment, resembles staging more than fair adjudication.
Sahakyan added that defense work continues on international platforms, including at the European Court of Human Rights, where arguments regarding violations of the rights of Armenian prisoners are presented.