Court news

January 17, 2025

The first hearing of Ruben’s case was held in the Baku military court. From the point of view of international law, it is illegal to hold the trial in a military court, since he is a civilian and was not even indirectly related to the activities of military units.

The trial in Baku is organized in such a way as to create an illusion of transparency. But the international press, representatives of foreign embassies and ordinary observers were forbidden to attend. Nevertheless, Azerbaijani state media published a video of the trial to make it appear legitimate.

After the introductory part, Vardanyan and his lawyer made two motions: to merge his case with the cases of 15 other former leaders of Artsakh and to grant an additional term for consideration of the criminal case.

As a result of the hearing, the court granted only the second motion. The state prosecutor objected to the motion to merge the criminal cases and asked the court not to grant it. However, Ruben and his lawyer were given additional 10 days to get acquainted with the materials of the case.

Most of the charges and “evidence” in the case are classified as state secrets. And other materials, to which the defense has access, are in Azerbaijani. Let us remind you that defendants in criminal cases have the right to have all materials translated into the language they speak.

Ruben was also denied access to the lawyer of his choice: the international defense lawyer was not allowed to visit the political prisoner in Baku. In addition, the prosecution did not disclose any details about the alleged testimony of witnesses.

Without free access to all alleged evidence in English and Russian, as well as to information about witnesses, Ruben and his lawyer will not be able to build a defense, let alone prepare and present documentary and testimonial evidence in his defense.

The court ordered the penitentiary service to provide Vardanyan with a tablet with the indictment in Russian and to provide him with access to an interpreter to get acquainted with the case materials. But the time given is no longer enough to prepare a full-fledged defense.

January 27, 2025

Many people attended the second hearing of Ruben Vardanyan’s case, but the trial itself remained closed to the public. Security measures at the entrance to the Baku military court were noticeably stricter compared to the first hearing: only observers from the list approved by the Azerbaijani government were allowed to attend the hearing. There is no confirmation that journalists, representatives of foreign embassies and non-governmental organizations were allowed to attend the hearing.

Last week, Ruben and his lawyer filed several motions, including for postponement of the trial and waiver of the state lawyer. The court rejected all the motions. In addition, the prosecutor accused Ruben and his lawyer of abusing their rights, which, according to the prosecutor, was the basis for the rejection of the motions.

Vardanyan spoke at the hearing and shared his views on the situation. He drew attention to the following procedural violations during the investigation and ongoing proceedings:

1. Only 23 days were given for getting acquainted with the 422 volumes of the case.

2. No translations of essential documents from Azerbaijani were provided.

3. No proper conditions for viewing video evidence were created.

4. Exchange of documents between the defendant and his lawyer was limited, which significantly hindered the work of the latter.

5. No Internet access was provided, which further limited the ability of Ruben and his lawyer to build a defense.

February 6, 2025

The third hearing on Ruben Vardanyan’s case was held in Baku Military Court.

The prosecutor began reading charges dating back to 1988. They have nothing to do with Ruben, as he was studying at Lomonosov Moscow State University at the time.

The court rejected all the motions filed by Ruben and his lawyer:

• motion for copies of all written documents and materials that the prosecution will use at trial;
• motion for translation of all the mentioned materials into Russian or English, as Ruben does not speak Azerbaijani;
• motion for access to video evidence (with translation if necessary);
• motion for regular access to the Internet to get acquainted with materials necessary to prepare for trial.

To date, less than 5% of the thousands of pages of the indictment and evidence that will be used against Ruben have been orally translated for him. And his local lawyer has only been able to review 20% of the materials.

In addition, Ruben’s lawyer filed a motion to disqualify the court-appointed interpreter after discovering serious inconsistencies in the translated documents, including:

• the translated decision on the results of the preliminary hearing contained references to the legislation of Belarus, which has no relevance to the case;
• the court explained that the translation was done by a different translator than the one now translating the materials of the trial. This motion was denied, but the court ordered to provide a correct and faithful translation.

Ruben’s lawyer also filed a motion to disqualify the trial panel. She stated that this motion would be considered only after the state prosecutor had completed the presentation of the charges.

The charges will be further read at the next hearings, which will be held on February 10 and 13.

February 10, 2025

At the fourth hearing, the Baku Military Court continued to read out the indictment in the case of Ruben Vardanyan, which contains many volumes and describes in detail events unrelated to the defendant.

At the hearing, Ruben and his lawyer filed two motions. One of them was about creating a confidential environment for discussion. The court granted this request: Vardanyan and his lawyer were allowed to confer in private.

Ruben also filed a motion to dismiss the judicial panel for the following reasons:

• violation of rights: the board did not consider violations of procedural rights at the investigation stage;
• Disrespect for international legal norms: The court ignored international standards that could ensure the fairness of the trial;
• Translation errors: the submitted materials contained serious errors that distorted the course of the trial, this violation was recognized by the court itself;
• Judicial inconsistencies: During the preparatory hearing, the court reflected in the decision only one motion (for postponement), and rejected the rest.

Ruben’s lawyer supported his petition with references to legal norms and confirmed the procedural violations that he observed as a participant in the investigation process. But the court did not consider the motion to dismiss the judicial board during the trial.

February 13, 2025

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’srefusal 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.

February 17, 2025

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 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.

February 25, 2025

During today’s hearing, after a week being on a hunger strike, Ruben Vardanyan’s health has deteriorated substantially. His blood pressure was recorded at 140/110, classified as a dangerous level and 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 offered a various intervals were all rejected.

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

The only development is that Ruben was finally given the indictment with a certified translation, but it remains state secrets 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: link.

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

March 4, 2025

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.

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.

Defense Counsel chose not to cross-examine the witnesses, as the court has consistently failed to uphold the principle of equality of arms, making fair participation in the process impossible. Specifically, the defense was not provided advance notice about the biographical details of the witnesses or the allegations they were expected to present, making it impossible to prepare to challenge their claims. And given the court failed to affirmatively apply any of the most basic requirements under Azerbaijan law for the acceptance of the presentation of evidence, including verifying the evidence’s clarity, accuracy, relevance, and sufficiency, the judicial panel continued to demonstrate its profound bias against Ruben as the defendant. As such, Defense Counsel once again reaffirmed its non-participation in the proceedings.

The next court session is scheduled for March 18, 2025.

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 the all hearing transcripts and audio recordings of past hearings. The judicial panel granted the motion. It is importance 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 Audi recordings.

After the motion was granted, the all 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.

April 1, 2025

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.

April 8, 2025

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.

April 15, 2025

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.

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.

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.

May 6, 2025

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.

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.

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.

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.

June 3, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

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

The judicial panel began by explaining to alleged victims participating for the first time their rights and obligations as provided by law.

Ruben submitted a motion requesting that the court provide his family with a copy of the indictment, which was supported by Defense Counsel. The Prosecutor opposed the request stating that under the CPC, the materials of the preliminary investigation (including the criminal file and the charges) are protected by investigative secrecy and cannot be distributed. They further noted that the indictment contains personal and family data for the participants in the proceedings, which are also protected by law. The Prosecutor emphasized that the CPC clearly defines the persons entitled to receive the indictment, and family members are not among them. The judicial panel conferred on-site and rejected the motion. It explained that only those persons expressly listed in the CPC may receive a copy of the indictment and family members do not qualify.

Ruben then made a motion to recuse the judicial panel on the grounds that his request for a copy of the indictment had been denied and his prior motions had not been reviewed, supported by Defense Counsel.

The Prosecutor responded by stating that no grounds under Article 109 of the CPC had been established to justify recusal, nor had any specific evidence of bias or vested interest on the panel been presented. He asked for the motion to be dismissed. The judicial panel took a brief recess to consider the recusal motion. After a short time, it returned. Presiding Judge Zeynal Agayev explained that the defense had not presented specific and credible evidence of the panel’s interest in the prosecution, as required by the Code, and no facts affecting the panel’s objectivity or impartiality had been established.

The Prosecutor presented 38 alleged victims and the legal successor of one victim who claimed they were injured by the alleged actions of the Armenian armed forces in a variety of ways, such as by a shell explosion, shrapnel wounds, artillery shelling, mortar fire, and large caliber weapons. The Court heard their testimonies and read out the corresponding forensic medical reports for each victim. None of the victims had met nor had any connection to Ruben and had only heard about him through the media and social networks. None had evidence to connect Ruben to the Armenian forces beyond alleging he was responsible for their injuries. Again, though the victim testimony constituted hearsay, the judicial panel did not rule this testimony inadmissible or exclude it from the record.

June 10, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

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

The judicial panel began by explaining to alleged victims participating for the first time their rights and obligations as provided by law.

Ruben submitted a motion for the second time requesting that a copy of the indictment be provided to his family members and requested that the motions he had submitted at previous sessions be reviewed, which was supported by Defense Counsel. The Presiding Judge stated that the motions submitted at previous hearings had already been reviewed and corresponding decisions had been made, and therefore, these would not be discussed again at this session.

Ruben then submitted a new motion to the court, requesting an expert examination to verify whether the Russian translation of the indictment corresponded to the original in Azerbaijani. The Prosecution opposed the request on the grounds that Ruben had repeatedly submitted motions of this type. The judicial panel retired to confer and upon returning to session, denied the motion.

The Prosecutor presented 25 alleged victims and legal successors of victims who claimed they were injured by the alleged actions of the Armenian armed forces in a variety of ways, such as by a shell explosion, artillery shelling, mortar fire, and large caliber weapons. The Court heard their testimonies and read out the corresponding forensic medical reports for each victim. None of the victims had met nor had any connection to Ruben and had only heard about him through the media and social networks. None had evidence to connect Ruben to the Armenian forces beyond alleging he was responsible for their injuries. Again, though the victim testimony constituted hearsay, the judicial panel did not rule this testimony inadmissible or exclude it from the record.

June 17, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

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

The judicial panel began by explaining to alleged victims participating for the first time their rights and obligations as provided by law.

The Prosecutor presented 16 alleged victims and legal successors of victims who claimed they were injured by, or their loved ones lost their lives to, the alleged actions of the Armenian armed forces in a variety of ways, such as by a shelling and mine explosion, enemy artillery shelling, enemy fire, and large caliber weapons. The Court heard their testimonies and read out the corresponding forensic medical reports for each victim. None of the victims had met nor had any connection to Ruben and had only heard about him through the media and social networks. None had evidence to connect Ruben to the Armenian forces beyond alleging he was responsible for their injuries. Again, though the victim testimony constituted hearsay, the judicial panel did not rule this testimony inadmissible or exclude it from the record.

June 24, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The hearing at the Baku Military Court was closed to the public. At the outset, the presiding judge explained the rights and responsibilities of newly participating victims and their legal representatives.

The defense submitted a motion to recuse the judicial panel, citing concerns raised by Ruben Vardanyan after reviewing earlier court transcripts, which he believes reflect a lack of impartiality. The motion was supported by his attorney, Avraam Berman. The Prosecutor and alleged victims requested that the motion be denied. The court ultimately declined to rule on the motion without consideration, stating that no concrete evidence of judicial bias had been presented.

Following this, the court continued hearing testimonies from alleged victims and legal successors of victims who claim to have suffered injuries or losses due to actions by Armenian armed groups. A total of over a dozen individuals testified about various incidents, including artillery shelling, mine explosions, sabotage attacks, and drone strikes allegedly carried out in different regions.Forensic medical reports were presented alongside the testimonies. All victims stated that they had no personal connection to Ruben Vardanyan and had only heard of him through media and social networks. None of the testimonies provided evidence linking Ruben to the incidents described, either directly or indirectly.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 1, 2025.

July 1, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest session of the so-called criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. The trial remained closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals, referred to as “victims” and “legal successors,” whose participation had been approved by the State.

Defense counsel Avraam Berman made a motion to the court requesting access to excerpts from prior judicial decisions on procedural motions discussed during the February 13th and 17th hearings. This motion was supported by Ruben Vardanyan. However, the court chose to postpone consideration of the motion, citing the need to clarify procedural details.

The majority of the hearing was devoted to hearing testimonies from alleged victims and legal successors, many of whom claimed to have been injured or lost relatives as a result of incidents allegedly involving Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations. The events described ranged from artillery shelling and sniper attacks to explosions. Forensic medical reports were presented by the prosecution in parallel with each testimony.

As in previous hearings, no evidence was presented linking Ruben Vardanyan to any of the events described. All individuals testifying confirmed that they had never met Ruben and had only heard of him through media and social networks. Nonetheless, their statements were added to the case record.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 8, 2025.

July 8, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the so-called criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The court then addressed a motion submitted by Ruben Vardanyan at the previous hearing, in which he had requested access to excerpts from prior judicial decisions on procedural motions submitted by the defense. The judge stated that, according to the court, all motions had been considered and corresponding decisions rendered. In response, Ruben reiterated his request for access to the actual excerpts from those decisions, and his Defense Counsel supported this request. The court, however, deferred any action and demanded a more specific list of motions for which excerpts were being requested.

The remainder of the hearing was devoted to hearing testimonies from alleged victims and legal successors, most of whom claimed to have been wounded or lost relatives during incidents allegedly involving Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations. Testimonies described various forms of injuries—shrapnel wounds, sniper fire, and mine explosions. In parallel, forensic medical reports were presented to the court for each case.

As in previous hearings, none of the individuals testifying had any personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan. All stated they had only heard about him through media or social networks. No factual evidence was presented linking Ruben to the incidents described. Nonetheless, all testimonies were added to the case record without challenge.

July 15, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

Before witness questioning began, the defendant, Ruben Vardanyan, submitted six motions to the Court:

Motion №1 – Vardanyan explained that for the second consecutive week, he had not been brought to court — without explanation — for the specific purpose of reviewing the hearing transcripts. He requested that arrangements be made to allow him to access and review the transcripts. Defense Counsel supported the motion and demanded compliance with procedural law. The motion was granted by the presiding judge.

Motion №2 – Vardanyan requested that Defense Counsel be permitted to review the transcripts independently, without his personal presence. This motion was also supported by Defense Counsel, who emphasized the right of the accused to access both the transcripts and audio recordings. The motion was granted by the presiding judge.

Motion №3 – Vardanyan requested the opportunity to meet privately with his Defense Counsel before each court session and while reviewing the transcripts to discuss any emerging questions. Defense Counsel supported this motion and reiterated the legal obligation to uphold this right. The motion was granted by the presiding judge.

Motion №4 – Vardanyan pointed out that he and his lawyer had previously requested excerpts from the court transcripts containing rulings on their motions. The presiding judge stated that the Defense must first provide a list of specific hearings for which they sought transcript excerpts. Mr. Berman responded that the defense is not obligated to submit such a list and instead seeks access to all decisions made on motions throughout the past six months of trial. The motion was granted by the presiding judge.

Motion №5 – Vardanyan requested an expert examination to assess the validity of the official charging protocol, which spans more than 160 pages and was signed only by the translator. He argued that under such conditions, proper questioning was not possible. Defense Counsel supported the motion. The presiding judge denied the request.

Motion №6 – Vardanyan asked the prosecution to specify the legal article referenced by each victim during their testimony. Defense Counsel supported this motion as well. The presiding judge denied the request.

The remainder of the session was devoted to testimony from individuals referred to as victims and legal successors. Forensic medical reports were submitted by the prosecution to support each testimony.

As in all previous hearings, none of the so-called victims had any personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and reported having only heard of him through media or social networks. No factual evidence was presented to link Ruben to any of the incidents described. Nevertheless, all testimonies were added to the court record.

The next court session is scheduled for July 22, 2025.

July 22, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

Before witness questioning began, the defendant, Ruben Vardanyan, submitted two motions to the Court:

Motion #1 – Vardanyan submitted a motion stating that interpreters who participated in the preliminary investigation and court proceedings had acted unprofessionally, thereby violating his rights. He requested their removal from the case. Defense Counsel supported the motion, highlighting serious translation errors made by specific individuals. The Defense noted that transcripts revealed certain individuals had translated documents without being present in court, which further undermined procedural integrity. The Prosecution objected, stating no specific proof of unprofessional conduct had been presented, and the presiding judge left the motion without consideration.

Motion #2 – Vardanyan filed a motion for the recusal of the judicial panel, citing violations in how his previous motions were handled. The presiding judge requested a written version of the motion. Defense Counsel requested a recess to prepare the document, explaining that the motion stemmed from new circumstances. The Prosecution argued that denial of motions is not sufficient grounds for recusal and requested the court to reject the motion. The presiding judge ruled that the Defense had not presented credible evidence of bias or partiality and left the recusal motion without consideration.

The presiding judge warned Vardanyan that further interruptions of the Prosecution would be considered contempt of court, and that repeated violations could result in his removal from the courtroom.

The remainder of the session was devoted to testimony from individuals referred to as victims and legal successors. Forensic medical reports were submitted by the Prosecution to support each testimony.

As in all previous hearings, none of the so-called victims had any personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and reported having only heard of him through media or social networks. No factual evidence was presented to link Ruben to any of the incidents described. Nevertheless, all testimonies were added to the court record.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 29, 2025.

July 29, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The remainder of the session was devoted to testimony from 17 individuals referred to as victims and legal successors. They testified about various incidents, such as artillery shelling and gunfire, which they alleged came from the Armenian military or illegal Armenian armed groups. Forensic medical reports were submitted by the Prosecution to support each testimony.

As in all previous hearings, none of the so-called victims had any personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and reported having only heard of him through media or social networks. No factual evidence was presented to link Ruben to any of the incidents described. Nevertheless, all testimonies were added to the court record.

The next hearing is scheduled for August 5, 2025.

August 5, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

Defense Counsel filed a new motion to recuse the judicial panel, citing gross and systematic violations of the defendant’s right to defense. In particular, he noted that confidential meetings with Ruben are being denied both before hearings, during breaks, and after sessions — in direct violation of Articles 91 and 92 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The court has repeatedly ignored the Defense Counsel’s statements on the matter, which demonstrates an interest in obstructing the Defense. This, he argued, constitutes grounds for recusal under Article 109.1.8 CPC RA. The motion demanded that the case be heard by a different panel that would fully ensure Ruben Vardanyan’s right to defense.

The court refused to consider the motion, claiming the Defense was “abusing its rights.”

The remainder of the session was devoted to victim testimonies. Several legal successors and victims testified regarding alleged injuries or deaths attributed to “illegal Armenian armed formations” or “remnants of the Armenian army.” All confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The next hearing is scheduled for August 12, 2025.

August 12, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

Defense Counsel filed a motion for a forensic linguistic examination, citing multiple inconsistencies with the Russian translation of the indictment, including:

An error where “legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan” was translated as “legislation of the Republic of Belarus.”

Significant differences in content, volume, and structure between different versions of the same translation.

A contradiction in the indictment where the alleged offence date appears as both December 2020 and 1980–1987.

The motion, supported by Ruben, argued that these errors undermine the right to defense and requested an expert assessment to determine the accuracy and reasons for such discrepancies. The Prosecution objected, and the court denied the motion, claiming the Defense had not identified concrete facts to be established through such an examination.

Defense Counsel then filed a new motion to recuse the judicial panel, citing deliberate delays in considering a February 2025 motion to recuse the interpreter — who could bear criminal liability for false translation. The judicial panel refused to put the recusal motion to discussion, accusing the Defense of “abusing its rights.”

The remainder of the session was devoted to alleged victim testimonies. As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The next hearing is scheduled for August 19, 2025.

August 19, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

• The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.
• At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”
• Before witness questioning began, the Defense Council, submitted two motions to the Court including:
• Motion #1 – Defense Counsel filed a motion to recuse the judicial panel, as the actions and inaction of the judicial panel demonstrate a violation of the principle of impartiality. The motion was supported by Ruben Vardanyan. The presiding judge did not put the recusal motion up for discussion.
• Motion #2 – Defense Counsel filed a motion for confidential communication with Ruben Vardanyan. The judge granted the motion.
• The remainder of the session was devoted to hearing more than 59 alleged victim testimonies. Each victim asserted they were injured in attacks by the Armenian military or illegal armed groups, including by shelling, detonation of mines, live fire, grenade explosions, unexploded ordnance, and other means.
• As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks. None provided any evidence of any connection between Ruben and any of the actions of those alleged victims who claimed to be injured in such attacks.
• There were both numerous medical examination reports as well as conclusions of prior forensic phonographic and explosives examinations that were all accepted as evidence.
• The next hearing is scheduled for August 26, 2025.

August 26, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

• The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.
• At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”
• The remainder of the session was devoted to alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of shelling, sniper fire, mine explosions, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.
• As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.
• The conclusions of forensic medical examinations of victims were also announced.

The next hearing is scheduled for September 2, 2025.

September 2, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The Defense Counsel submitted two motions to the Court:

Motion №1 – Defense Counsel filed a motion for the recusal of the court clerk given the failure to comply with judge’s orders to summon the translator and provide extracts of rulings, as well as providing false information to the court. The motion was supported by Ruben Vardanyan. The judicial panel not to act on the motion without consideration.

Motion №2 – Defense Counsel filed a motion to request that the court send an official notice of summons to the translator. The motion was supported by Ruben Vardanyan. The presiding judge decided not to act on the motion but instructed the court clerk to issue an official summons to the translator.

The remainder of the session was devoted to alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of shelling, artillery fire, sniper fire, grenade explosions, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The conclusions of forensic medical examinations of victims were also announced.

The next hearing is scheduled for September 9, 2025.

September 9, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The remainder of the session was devoted to hearing more than 40 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of shelling, landmines, enemy sabotage, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The conclusions of forensic medical examinations of victims were also presented to the court.

The next hearing is scheduled for September 16, 2025.

September 16, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

Before witness questioning began, the defendant, Ruben Vardanyan, submitted six motions to the Court:

• Motion #1 – Vardanyan filed a motion to admonish the Prosecution for addressing him as an “enemy” rather than the legally mandated “defendant”. The motion was supported by the Defense Counsel, arguing that using “enemy” violates the presumption of innocence and the Azerbaijan Code of Criminal Procedure. The Prosecution opposed, and the court rejected the motion.
• Motion #2 – Vardanyan filed a motion to summon the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, as a defense witness. The motion was supported by the Defense Counsel, who sought the Prime Minister’s testimony regarding assertions that Armenia’s leadership had allegedly exercised control over the organization. The Prosecution opposed, and the court rejected the motion.
• Motion #3 – Vardanyan filed a motion to summon the OSCE Minsk Group members and OSCE representatives as defense witnesses. The motion was supported by the Defense Counsel, who argued that these international mediators hold knowledge of command-and-control allegations and alleged financial flows. The Prosecution opposed, and the court rejected the motion.
• Motion #4 – Vardanyan filed a motion to summon ICRC representatives in Azerbaijan as defense witnesses. The motion was supported by the Defense Counsel to clarify the legal basis of such visits, as ICRC representatives have previously visited Ruben, despite him not being a prisoner of war. The Prosecution opposed, and the court left the motion without consideration.
• Motion #5 – Vardanyan filed a motion to summon commanders of the Russian peacekeeping forces as defense witnesses. The motion was supported by the Defense Counsel, who argued that this was essential to rebut the charge of alleged illegal border crossing. The Prosecution opposed, and the court left the motion without consideration, noting it may be re-submitted later.
• Motion #6 – Vardanyan filed a motion to provide all extracts of rulings on prior motions. The court stated that it would provide them.

The remainder of the session was devoted to hearing the testimonies of the “victims”. According to the Prosecution, the case concerns injuries and damages sustained during the period of hostilities, which the claimants attribute to Ruben Vardanyan.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks. The court struck a question by the Defense Counsel asking why one of the witnesses believed the act was carried out by Vardanyan.

The conclusions of forensic medical examinations of victims were also announced.

The next hearing is scheduled for September 23, 2025.

September 23, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The remainder of the session was devoted to hearing over 45 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of shelling, sabotage attacks, gunfire, landmines, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The next hearing is scheduled for September 30, 2025.

September 30, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court.  As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

Before witness questioning began, the presiding judge informed the court that an interpreter who had previously participated in proceedings had notified the court he could not attend due to health reasons.

The presiding judge noted that Vardanyan had previously requested the court to invite this interpreter, and the court had subsequently sent a notice inviting him to the hearing.

Defense Counsel then requested information from the court on whether there would be an opportunity to review hearing transcripts and extracts of rulings on motions previously submitted by the Defense.

The presiding judge confirmed that the Defense would continue to be granted access to the transcripts. The presiding judge then asked the Defense to specify which extracts they would like to receive.  Defense Counsel replied that extracts should be provided in full, since all motions are part of the case file.

The remainder of the session was devoted to hearing over 30 alleged victim testimonies.  Their accounts described incidents of shelling, sabotage attacks, landmines, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The conclusions of forensic medical examinations of victims were also announced.

The next hearing is scheduled for October 7, 2025.

October 7, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The session was devoted to hearing over 35 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of shelling, artillery fire, grenades, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The conclusions of forensic medical examinations of victims were also announced.

The next hearing is scheduled for October 14, 2025.

October 14, 2025

Based on information provided by local defense counsel Avraam Berman.

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The session was devoted to hearing over 15 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of mine explosions, shelling, gunshots, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

During the witness testimonies, the Prosecution objected to several questions posed by Defense Counsel, requesting that they be struck from the record. The presiding judge rejected the objection.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The conclusions of forensic medical examinations of victims were also announced.

The next hearing is scheduled for October 21, 2025.

October 21, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The Defendant Ruben Vardanyan requested a confidential meeting with Defense Counsel, which was granted by the court.

After the meeting, Vardanyan submitted another request, stating that he was waiving the services of Defense Counsel, Avraam Berman, citing dissatisfaction with the trial process and reiterating views he had expressed in previous sessions.

In response to the request, the Prosecutor General’s Senior Assistant, Vusal Aliyev, noted that Vardanyan had the right to refuse his current lawyer, but could not waive legal defense completely.

Vardanyan stated he had not signed a contract with any other lawyers and did not object to being provided with a state-appointed attorney.

After deliberation, the court granted Vardanyan’s request to dismiss Berman and decided that a state-appointed attorney would be provided to the Defense.

This decision was sent to the Bar Association of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

After the completion of this hearing, Ruben Vardanyan issued this statement to explain his decision to dismiss his Defense Counsel.

The next hearing is scheduled for October 28, 2025.

Important Note

The trial updates from the next session onwards are exclusively based on Azerbaijani state-run media as the Baku Military Court trial of Ruben Vardanyan is closed to the public. There is no free or independent media in Azerbaijan[1] and, therefore, reporting on Vardanyan’s case is expected to be slanted and biased. All assertions from state-run media will be identified in the text and marked in the footnotes. To the extent possible, Vardanyan’s legal team will try to identify material inaccuracies regarding claims of the state-run media about his case.

[1] According to Reporters Without Borders, Azerbaijan is ranked 167th out of 180 countries in its 2025 Press Freedom Index. It explains: “Virtually the entire media sector is under official control, and state-owned television is the most popular information source. No independent television or radio is transmitted from within the country, and all print newspapers with a critical stance have been shut down.” Azerbaijan, Reporters Without Borders, available at https://rsf.org/en/country/azerbaijan.

October 28, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

Azerbaijani state media asserted that Vardanyan was provided with a translator for Russian, which he understands.

Presiding Judge Zeynal Aghayev announced that Vardanyan’s new Defense Counsel is Emil Babishov, a member of the Azerbaijan Bar Association.[1]

The next hearing is scheduled for November 4, 2025.

[1]Baku Military Court Assigns New State-Provided Lawyer for Ruben Vardanyan, Caliber, October 28, 2025 (State-Run Media).

November 4, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

Before witness questioning began, the state-appointed Defense Counsel Emil Babishov filed a motion to the court:

Motion #1 – Defense Counsel filed a motion noting that the full extracts of the court’s decision on previous motions had still not yet been provided to the defense and requesting that they be provided. The presiding judge stated that the extracts had already been provided.

The defendant, Ruben Vardanyan, subsequently submitted another motion to the Court:

Motion #2 – Vardanyan filed a motion to summon a representative of the State Border Service in connection with the charge of the illegal border crossing. The motion was supported by the Defense Counsel. The Prosecution opposed, stating that if the Defendant entered the Republic of Azerbaijan legally, this could be proven by a stamp in his civilian passport. The court left the motion without consideration, noting that the issue could be revisited if the Defense submitted information specifying an individual.

The remainder of the session was devoted to hearing over 40 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of gunfire, grenade explosions, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The next hearing is scheduled for November 18, 2025.

November 18, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

Before witness questioning began, the court considered a motion previously submitted by the defendant objecting to the interpreter Islam Agakarimov, who had previously participated in the preparatory court session, and was present at this hearing. The Defense had objected to the interpreter in an earlier hearing due to their unprofessional and inaccurate translations. Vardanyan and his state-appointed defense lawyer Emil Babishov requested that the court grant their objection.

Agakarimov stated that his previous translation only had a single unintentional mechanical error. As a result, the Prosecution opposed the request on the grounds that under the Criminal Procedure Code, a mechanical or technical error does not qualify as a reason to object to an interpreter, and the court rejected the motion.

The remainder of the session was devoted to hearing over 10 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of land mines, grenade explosions, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The next hearing is scheduled for November 20, 2025.

November 20, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The session was devoted to hearing over 20 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of rocket projectiles, mortar shells, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The next hearing is scheduled for November 21, 2025.

November 21, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The remainder of the session was devoted to hearing over 20 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of artillery shelling, grenade explosions, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The next hearing is scheduled for November 24, 2025.

November 24, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The remainder of the session was devoted to hearing over 25 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of gunfire, mortar explosions, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The next hearing is scheduled for November 25, 2025.

November 25, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The session was devoted to hearing over 15 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of mortar shells, gunshot wounds, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The next hearing is scheduled for December 1, 2025.

December 1, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The session was devoted to hearing over 10 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of grenades, mortar shells, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, each confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The next hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2025.

December 2, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The court then proceeded to hear the testimonies of the “victims.” Their accounts described incidents of shelling, artillery fire, mortar fire, sniper fire, mine explosions, and other attacks allegedly carried out during the period of hostilities. Several testimonies referred to fatalities and multiple injuries. The court then continued with the examination of documents and other evidence contained in the case file.

As in all prior sessions, none of the so-called victims had any personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks. No factual evidence was presented linking Ruben to any of the alleged incidents.

The next hearing is scheduled for December 5, 2025.

December 5, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The presiding judge noted that a group of alleged victims had previously informed the court that they were unable to attend the hearing and confirmed the statements they had given during the preliminary investigation. The court proceeded to hear the statements, as there were no objections to their announcement.

Additional evidentiary documents found in the criminal case files were also announced.

As in all prior sessions, all testimonies confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The next hearing is scheduled for December 8, 2025.

December 8, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The session was devoted to hearing over 8 alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

It was noted that a group of alleged victims had previously informed the court that they were unable to attend the hearing and confirmed the statements they had given during the preliminary investigation.

As in all prior sessions, all testimonies confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

The defendant, Ruben Vardanyan, then submitted a motion to the Court:

Motion #1 – Vardanyan filed a motion stating that he wanted to familiarize himself with several documents regarding the criminal case, including the interrogations. The motion was supported by the Defense Counsel. The Prosecution stated that they did not oppose the defendant or the Defense Counsel familiarizing themselves with the documents in question. The presiding judge stated that the Defense would be provided with the necessary conditions to familiarize themselves with the documents this week.

The next hearing is scheduled for December 9, 2025.

December 9, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

The session was devoted to hearing three alleged victim testimonies. Their accounts described incidents of mine explosions, mortar shells, and other attacks allegedly carried out by Armenian armed forces and so-called illegal formations in various districts.

As in all prior sessions, all testimonies confirmed that they had no personal acquaintance with Ruben Vardanyan and knew of him only through media and social networks.

Ruben Vardanyan then submitted a motion to the Court:

Motion #1 – Vardanyan filed a motion stating that he wanted to review several documents regarding the criminal case and asked for some documents to be excluded. The presiding judge stated that Vardanyan would be provided with the necessary conditions after he specified which documents he wished to review.

The next hearing is scheduled for December 12, 2025.

December 12, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court.  As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

Before witness questioning began, the state-appointed Defense Counsel Emil Babishov filed a motion to the Court:

Motion #1 – Defense Counsel filed a motion requesting that all witnesses who have testified both during the preliminary investigation and during the trial be considered unreliable evidence due to their lack of connection with the Defendant. The motion was supported by Ruben Vardanyan. 

Motion #2 – Defense Counsel filed a motion arguing that some of the injuries sustained by the alleged victims took place when the Defendant was not a citizen of the Republic of Armenia, further challenging the connection between witnesses and Vardanyan. The motion was supported by Ruben Vardanyan. 

The Prosecution opposed both motions, stating that they were identical in nature and should be resolved at the deliberation stage, and the presiding judge left both motions without consideration.

Ruben Vardanyan then submitted several motions to the Court:

Motion #1 – Vardanyan filed a motion stating that he wanted to include several Russian-language documents into the case file. The motion was supported by the Defense Counsel. The Prosecution did not raise any objections, and the court approved the motion, noting that the document should be translated into Azerbaijani.

Motion #2 – Vardanyan filed a motion stating that he wanted to review volumes 1-15 of the criminal case, and that the witnesses mentioned in those volumes be invited to court. The motion was supported by the Defense Counsel. The Prosecution did not object to Vardanyan’s access to the materials but opposed the summoning of witnesses referenced in the case file. The court approved the motion regarding access to the case volumes but stated that the issue of summoning witnesses would be addressed at a later date.

Motion #3 – Vardanyan filed a motion stating that he wanted to review relevant audio and video recordings. The motion was supported by the Defense Counsel.  The presiding judge stated that the Defense would be provided with the opportunity to examine the necessary materials.

As in all prior sessions, no factual evidence was presented linking any of the alleged victims with Ruben Vardanyan.

The next hearing is scheduled for December 16, 2025.

December 16, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

At the start of the hearing, the presiding judge reiterated the procedural rights and obligations to several newly admitted individuals referred to as “victims” and “legal successors.”

Before witness questioning began, the state-appointed Defense Counsel Emil Babishov filed two motions to the Court:

Motion #1 – Defense Counsel filed a motion to summon a representative of the ICRC as a defense witness. Defense Counsel argued that since ICRC representatives had previously visited Vardanyan, their testimony was necessary to clarify Vardanyan’s procedural status. This motion was supported by Vardanyan. The Prosecution opposed, and the court denied the motion.

Motion #2 – Defense Counsel filed a motion to summon the investigator as a witness to clarify protocols and video recordings from inspections conducted on premises associated with Vardanyan. This motion was supported by Vardanyan. The Prosecution opposed, and the court denied the motion.

The presiding judge then asked if the parties had any objection to concluding the investigation and commencing oral arguments. Neither party opposed the conclusion of the judicial investigation.

As in all prior sessions, no factual evidence was presented linking any of the alleged victims with Ruben Vardanyan.

The next hearing is scheduled for December 18, 2025.

December 18, 2025

The latest hearing of the criminal trial against Ruben Vardanyan took place at the Baku Military Court. As in all prior hearings, it was closed to the public.

In his remarks, the prosecutor requested a life sentence for Vardanyan.

December 30, 2025

The court hearing scheduled for December 30 in the case against Ruben Vardanyan was postponed for an indefinite period, according to Azerbaijani media reports.

The postponement is attributed to the ongoing deliberations of the judicial panel at the Baku Military Court, chaired by Judge Zeynal Aghayev and composed of judges Anar Rzayev and Jamal Ramazanov, with Judge Gunel Samadova serving as a reserve judge, in a separate “case” involving 15 Armenian citizens.

According to the same sources, the next hearing in Ruben Vardanyan’s case will take place after the judicial panel completes its deliberations in that separate “case.”