The trials that have been ongoing in Baku for nearly a year do not meet any standards of a fair trial and, by their nature, serve as instruments of political retribution. This was stated by Siranush Sahakyan, representative of Armenian prisoners’ interests at the European Court of Human Rights.
According to her, the trials concerning alleged actions attributed to Armenians, which began in Baku about a year ago, were officially launched on January 17, 2025. Azerbaijani authorities, however, had presented them in advance as a “historic” process, comparing them in domestic discourse even to the Nuremberg Trials.
Separation of cases without legal grounds
Sahakyan recalls that on January 16, Ruben Vardanyan issued a statement describing the trials as a farce, noting that no confessions had been given and that protocols signed during the investigation stage were falsified. She states that lawyers and translators signed these documents under coercion.
She emphasizes that the artificial separation of cases is particularly problematic. During the investigation phase, there was a single unified case with identical facts and evidence. Later, however, a decision was made to separate Ruben Vardanyan’s case.
As a result, two parallel trials emerged: one involving a single defendant, and another involving 15 defendants, including seven military-political leaders of Artsakh and eight prisoners captured during the September 2023 attack.
“From a legal standpoint, there are no grounds for separating the case. What we see here is not a legal decision, but a personalized political one,” Sahakyan stresses.
“Open” trials with a closed reality
According to Sahakyan, despite the authorities’ attempts to portray the proceedings as open, in reality they were closed to independent journalists, international observers, experts, and civil society organizations. Coverage of the trials was carried out exclusively through Azerbaijan’s state news agency, resulting in one-sided information being presented to the public.
In cases where alternative information was obtained, serious inconsistencies and incomplete presentations of facts were identified. All requests for access to the courtroom were either rejected or ignored, which also constituted a violation of rights.
Over nearly a year and more than 150 court hearings, no concrete evidence was presented to substantiate the charges. Instead, political narratives dominated, and the primary aim of the trials was the delegitimization of Artsakh as a political entity and the demonstrative punishment of Armenians who acted in its interests.
Final stage of the trials and proposed sentences
Sahakyan notes that by November, the trials had entered their final stage, during which proposed sentences were announced. For most members of Artsakh’s military-political leadership, life imprisonment was requested. Only in two cases, due to the defendants having reached the age of 65, were 20-year prison sentences sought.
In Ruben Vardanyan’s case, an important development occurred in October, when he отказался от услуг частного адвоката, citing the impossibility of mounting an effective defense. The court was presented with more than 400 volumes of case materials, exceeding 100,000 pages. These materials were used in both trials but were not translated into languages accessible to the Armenian defendants, nor was adequate time given to review them.
A significant portion of the documents was classified, further restricting access. “It was expected that Armenians would organize a formal defense without access to the indictment or case materials,” Sahakyan notes.
All motions aimed at ensuring a genuine right to defense were rejected, violating the principle of equality of arms.
Delays and obstruction of the final statement
Sahakyan recalls that until October, relatively diverse information about the trials was available. After the withdrawal of the private lawyer, however, the sole source of information became official Azerbaijani media.
On December 26, the final hearing in the case of the 15 defendants took place, after which the court retired to deliberate. A verdict is expected soon.
In contrast, Ruben Vardanyan’s case shows clear signs of deliberate delays. A hearing scheduled for December 27, during which he was to deliver his final statement, was first postponed due to alleged health issues of the state-appointed lawyer, and then due to the court being in deliberation.
“If this were a genuine reason, the previous hearing should also have been postponed on the same grounds,” Sahakyan stresses, suggesting intentional delay.
Jurisdiction of military courts
Sahakyan highlights as a serious issue the fact that all cases were examined by military tribunals, including Ruben Vardanyan’s case, where the defendant is a civilian.
She notes that military court jurisdiction presupposes a militarized defendant. Notably, during the initial detention phase, motions were filed in civilian courts, and only later were the cases transferred to military tribunals.
“We interpret this as a manifestation of a political order,” Sahakyan states.
The role of religious discrimination
Sahakyan does not rule out the presence of a religious factor in the trials. She notes that the defendants are Christian Armenians, which is reflected in various aspects of their treatment.
While some books are allowed to be transferred to Armenian prisoners, the Bible is prohibited without explanation. Religious symbols are also banned, and public reports document cases where such symbols were removed or destroyed.
According to Sahakyan, Christian identity may also play a role in the handling of these cases.