Part 12 is here.
Pastinfo continues its series of publications titled “‘Justice’ According to Azerbaijan,” analyzing the indictment and verdict in the case of Ruben Vardanyan. For 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 “Aviation Safety.”
AVIATION SAFETY
Read also
Article 270-1.2 — Transmission of false information to an aircraft in flight or interference with the operation of air navigation equipment
Alleged Act: Electronic jamming of civilian flights utilizing Pole-21, Repellent-1, and “Mortira” defense systems.
Evidence Underlying the Charge: There is no evidence connecting Ruben Vardanyan to the operation of electronic warfare systems. The prosecution presented only the geographical coordinates of the stations and a list of jammed flights (e.g., May 31, 2022; July 8, 2022; August 11, 2022). Across all pages of the indictment pertaining to this charge, Vardanyan’s name appears precisely once, within the generic phrase “under the direct leadership of Ruben Vardanyan and others,” without describing any specific action on his part.
Imposed Penalty: No penalty was imposed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Taron Simonyan’s Analysis: Electronic warfare systems are military assets belonging to the Defense Army, and the verdict fails to establish any connection between Vardanyan and their operation, relying solely on the formulaic assertion: “under the direct leadership of Ruben Vardanyan and others.”
The timeline speaks for itself: the flights cited by the court are dated May 31, July 8, and August 11, 2022, all of which precede Ruben Vardanyan’s relocation to Artsakh.
Furthermore, a revealing detail highlights the “reliability” of the prosecution’s evidence: according to the verdict, the jamming of the Singapore–Helsinki flight “began at 02:09 and ended at 01:28,” meaning it purportedly ended 41 minutes before it began.
Article 270-1.4 — Intentional destruction of or damage to an aircraft in service
Alleged Act: Planning the procurement of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and electronic warfare systems, framed as acts endangering aviation safety.
Evidence Underlying the Charge: There is no evidence whatsoever of any destroyed or damaged aircraft. The prosecution submitted only correspondence regarding the attempted purchase of Liaz (November 2022) and Malloy (September 2023) UAVs, alongside planning materials related to electronic warfare systems.
Imposed Penalty: Seven years of imprisonment (within the statutory range of three to eight years).
Taron Simonyan’s Analysis: This statute requires a material corpus delicti (actus reus), necessitating proof of a specific destroyed or damaged aircraft. The verdict identifies no such aircraft. Consequently, the core element of the crime, and thus the crime itself, is entirely absent.
Factually, the alleged radio jamming falls under Article 270-1.2, for which no penalty was imposed due to time-barring. The seven-year sentence was instead assigned under a charge whose statute of limitations had not yet expired. Qualifying unfulfilled negotiations to purchase UAVs as the “destruction of an aircraft” is logically equivalent to inferring a traffic collision from an intent to purchase a car.
