Pastinfo continues its series of publications titled “‘Justice’ According to Azerbaijan,” analyzing the indictment and verdict in the case of Ruben Vardanyan. For a professional legal analysis, we have engaged Taron Simonyan, an international law expert and a founding partner of the ELL PARTNERSHIP law firm.
Today, we analyze the charges under the category of “Economic Crimes.”
IV. ECONOMIC CRIMES
Article 192.3.1 — Illegal entrepreneurship
Read also
(Carried out without state registration or a license, generating income on a particularly large scale)
Alleged Act: Conducting business activities “without Azerbaijani registration and licenses” through Ameriabank, the Aurora Humanitarian Initiative, the We Are Our Mountains Development Agency, and Troika Dialog. Alleged damages: 103,047,605,899.53 AZN (approximately 60,616,000,000 USD).
Evidence Underlying the Charge: The Republic of Artsakh was treated as Azerbaijani territory, yet there is no evidence of entrepreneurial activity or income generation within Azerbaijan’s jurisdiction. The charges rely solely on letters and “operational information” from the State Security Service of Azerbaijan, including Letter No. 249 (dated November 30, 2023) concerning his biography. The same materials contain uncharged allegations, such as alleged “money laundering through Hungary” and “links to organized crime groups,” as well as references to sanctions imposed under Ukraine’s Decree No. 726 (dated October 19, 2022). The methodology behind calculating the 103 billion AZN in damages is entirely absent.
Imposed Penalty: The court sentenced him to six years of imprisonment under this count.
Taron Simonyan’s Legal Analysis: Entrepreneurship, by definition, is aimed at generating profit. Aurora and We Are Our Mountains are charitable foundations, which by nature do not seek profit. Ameriabank is a financial institution licensed by the Central Bank of Armenia, and Troika Dialog was a Russian company. None of these entities operated within the territory of Azerbaijan, and criminal law strictly applies within the territorial jurisdiction of the state concerned.
To apply this article, generating “income on a particularly large scale” is mandatory. Instead, the court substitutes this requirement with the figure of 103 billion AZN, which, according to the prosecution itself, represents the total “damage caused” during the conflict, not income earned by Vardanyan. “Damage” and “income” are fundamentally distinct legal concepts, and the applicability of the article hinges directly on this conflation. Notably, the court verdict did not even confiscate this 103 billion AZN; it merely ordered the recovery of 1,584 AZN (approximately 930 USD) in court expenses.
Ruben Vardanyan Accused of Murder and Attempted Murder — Part 9
We analyze the group of charges under the category of “Murder and Attempted Murder.”
III. MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER
Articles 120.2.1, .3, .4, .7, .11, .12 — Aggravated intentional homicide
(Committed by an organized group or criminal association; against a person performing official duties; with particular cruelty; against two or more persons; tied to terrorism; motivated by national hatred)
Alleged Act: 18,850 individuals killed (1988–2024). Post-ceasefire: 285 landmine incidents resulting in 353 fatalities. Dated episode: the shelling of an individual village on September 19, 2023.
Evidence Underlying the Charge: No evidence establishes an order, act, or any criminal intent by Ruben Vardanyan. In more than 208 forensic medical reports concerning causes of death, his name is not mentioned a single time. Of the testimonies provided by victims and legal successors of the deceased, only three mention his name, none of which are based on personal observation. Testimonies regarding the episode involving the shelling of the individual village say nothing about Vardanyan.
Imposed Penalty: The court sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment, once again issuing a single, overall sentence across six sub-clauses.
Taron Simonyan’s Analysis: To convict a person for murder, there must be a specific victim, a specific act, a causal link between them, and an intent to kill. None of these four elements are present in the verdict. Most telling is the fact that in the extensive forensic section concerning the causes of death, Ruben Vardanyan’s name is never mentioned once.
The only dated episode is the shelling of the village of Mollalar, which took place on September 19, 2023, during Azerbaijan’s own military operation and at a time when Vardanyan had already been a retired civilian for seven months. As a result, all deaths spanning a period of 36 years are attributed to a single individual without a single specific case to substantiate it. Furthermore, the same aggravating factors — acting as part of a group, cruelty, and national hostility — were taken into account a second time as general aggravating circumstances, which is explicitly prohibited by Article 61.3 of Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code.
Articles 29 + 120.2.x (six combinations) — Attempted aggravated intentional homicide
(Attempted murder involving the same six aggravating factors)
Alleged Act: 56,268 victims of attempted murder (1988–2024). 882 injured by landmine explosions. Dated episode: the injury of M. Hasanov in Mollalar on September 19, 2023.
Evidence Underlying the Charge: Once again, no evidence supporting the charge was presented. The prosecution relies on the testimonies of the injured and forensic medical reports regarding their injuries. The victims even include individuals involved in routine accidents: two witnesses whose vehicle skidded into a minefield due to rain in the Agdam region on September 30, 2021, and one witness who tripped in the dark while carrying an ammunition box on the night of September 20, 2023.
Imposed Penalty: The court sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment.
Taron Simonyan’s Analysis: An attempted murder can only be committed with direct intent: it must be proven that the individual specifically sought the death of a particular person. The court fails to prove such intent in any of the 56,268 cases.
Here, the prosecution’s choice of evidence itself refutes the charge. A vehicle skidding due to rain or a trip in the dark lacks criminal intent and, therefore, by definition, cannot constitute attempted murder.
