“The only aspects of the trials of Armenian hostages that are publicized are those that align with Azerbaijan’s narrative. For example, when Arayik Harutyunyan apologizes for actions related to Ganja, this is widely disseminated. However, when Ruben Vardanyan states that he does not plead guilty to the alleged charges, this information is not made public,” said human rights defender Siranush Sahakyan, head of the International and Comparative Law Center, during an interview on the Armenian Public Radio program “Without Connotations.” She addressed questions regarding the treatment of Armenian hostages held in Azerbaijan, their trials, the involvement of the Armenian government, the mandate of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the risks of mutual withdrawal of cases from international courts.
The discussion covered absurd and sometimes even ridiculous accusations, such as the charge against Ruben Vardanyan regarding the Khojaly events. According to Sahakyan, “The fabricated charges found in the trials of the other 15 Armenian hostages have been entirely replicated in Ruben Vardanyan’s case, despite the fact that he served as a public official for only a short time and was never involved in military operations or command processes.”
Speaking about international legal involvement, Sahakyan emphasized that the global community does not recognize these trials as legitimate legal proceedings and is unwilling to accept their outcomes. “Azerbaijani court rulings cannot serve as a legal basis for depriving these individuals of their freedom. Any independent process must be conducted to substantiate the alleged actions, and only then can its findings be acknowledged by the international community. However, these developments also reaffirm that Armenians in Azerbaijani prisons are subjected to torture, their freedom of expression is restricted, and they are forced to make public statements under duress. They are punished for providing honest accounts, for speaking out about human rights violations, and, they face real and immediate threats to their lives. The involvement of international organizations is what ensures their survival. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the ICRC, and the UN’s International Court of Justice are engaged in these processes, addressing the unlawful detention of Armenian military and political leaders. Internationalizing these issues restrains Azerbaijani authorities from carrying out extrajudicial killings of Armenian detainees. However, these individuals are still subjected to torture, and their rights are exploited for political purposes,” Sahakyan stated, adding that no committee for the prevention of torture has been granted access to Azerbaijan to visit the Armenian hostages.
The discussion also touched on the Armenian government's involvement in addressing the situation of Armenian prisoners of war. Sahakyan reiterated that she does not share either of the two extreme opinions—one claiming that the Armenian authorities are doing nothing, and the other asserting that they are taking action every hour of every day.
Commenting on a recent statement by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Sahakyan noted that “under certain circumstances and conditions, it may be acceptable for us. The idea is that we must ensure we are not only withdrawing cases from international courts but also abandoning these disputes entirely. Otherwise, we may find ourselves in a situation where we withdraw a case, Azerbaijan withdraws one as well, but in the next phase, Azerbaijan brings these issues back to the negotiating table, leading to potential escalations.”
Sahakyan disagrees with this approach. “For reciprocity to be valid, we must have comparable and equivalent cases. This means that the subject and justification of Azerbaijani claims must be somewhat comparable to those of Armenia. Azerbaijan has typically operated under a mirror-image principle: Armenia has submitted well-founded complaints with substantial evidence of violations, whereas Azerbaijan, without any actual incidents, has filed claims to create the illusion of a bilateral issue. For instance, if Armenian citizens face racial discrimination in Azerbaijan, they argue that similar discrimination exists in Armenia. However, these claims are fabricated and lack factual basis or evidence. I believe Azerbaijan has presented these so-called mutual withdrawals for tactical reasons—to push the agenda of a bilateral abandonment of claims at the negotiation table,” said Sahakyan. She also emphasized that the cases filed by Armenia are of crucial importance and could play a pivotal role in shaping the country’s foreign policy.