BAKU, Azerbaijan, December 11. The open court
hearing in the criminal case against citizens of the Republic of
Armenia – Arayik Harutyunyan, Arkadi Gukasian, Bako Sahakyan, Davit
Ishkhanyan, David Babayan, Levon Mnatsakanyan, and others – accused
of war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity,
including planning and waging an aggressive war, genocide,
violations of the laws and customs of war, terrorism, financing of
terrorism, illegal seizure of power, unlawful retention of
authority, and numerous other offenses committed as a result of
Armenia’s military aggression against Azerbaijan – resumed on
December 11, Trend reports.
The session was held at the Baku Military Court under the
chairmanship of Judge Zeynal Agayev, with judges Camal Ramazanov
and Anar Rzayev, and reserve judge Gunel Sadigova.
Each of the accused was provided with interpreters in their
preferred language and defense attorneys, ensuring full compliance
with procedural rights.
The hearing was attended by the accused, their defense lawyers,
some victims, their legal heirs and representatives, as well as
prosecutors representing the state prosecution.
Both parties were granted the right to deliver rebuttals during
the session.
In his statement, Vusal Aliyev, First Deputy Prosecutor General
of Azerbaijan, addressed arguments raised by the defense regarding
the nature and role of the alleged criminal association.
He recalled that, according to the defense, a criminal
organization, based on international practice, is typically formed
specifically for the commission of criminal acts. However, he
emphasized that evidence presented in court confirms a different
reality: several years before the outbreak of the First Karabakh
War, armed militant groups began to be systematically organized and
supported by the leadership of Armenia.
“It is indeed confirmed by the evidence that these groups were
directly backed and armed by Armenia’s leadership. But what
followed makes the situation even more significant: the leaders and
members of these armed units later assumed key political and
military positions within both the self-proclaimed entity in the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan and within the state apparatus
of Armenia itself. This clearly indicates that these were not
random or spontaneous groups, but rather evolved into integral
components of the criminal military structure that carried out the
occupation of Azerbaijani lands.”
Referring to specific defendants, Mr. Aliyev noted that
individuals such as David Manukyan were members of the Shusha
Battalion, while Davit Ishkhanyan served as commander of the “28th
Martuni” Battalion – formations that represent rebranded, more
structured, and militarized versions of earlier illegal armed
groups.
The prosecutor stressed that although the fact of Armenia’s
occupation of Azerbaijani territories is indisputable and has been
proven by extensive evidence, this does not diminish or absolve the
responsibility of the current defendants.
“While these widespread crimes were indeed orchestrated and
supported by Armenia’s military and political leadership, they were
carried out through the active participation of a criminal
association – of which the accused were members. Moreover, at
various points, some of the currently charged individuals formally
held high-ranking military or political positions within the
Armenian state. In this context, the Armenian state and the illegal
entity functioned as a single, coordinated organism in organizing,
executing, and maintaining the occupation,” the prosecutor
added.
He continued: “Video materials reviewed during the investigation
into Davit Ishkhanyan’s combat activities show that during the
assault on Shusha, his assigned task was to prevent reinforcements
from the Azerbaijani Army from reaching the city. Even if he did
not physically participate in direct attacks, his actions created
conditions that enabled the offensive, or prevented its resistance
– a hallmark of participation in a criminal organization.”
Similarly, the prosecutor cited: David Manukyan, who
participated in the occupation of Kalbajar by blocking roads;
Melikset Pashayan, seen manning armed posts in villages of Aghdam;
Lyova Mnatsakanyan, who provided artillery support during the
occupation of Gubadli, Zangilan, and Aghdam; Madat Babayan,
involved in the capture of Aghdara, Kalbajar, Tartar, and the town
of Khojaly.
“All of them bear individual criminal responsibility for their
roles in the occupation of these territories,” stated the
prosecutor.
Vusal Aliyev emphasized that despite being fully aware of the
legal implications, the accused willingly performed their assigned
functions within the criminal organization – all aimed at achieving
its central objective: the illegal annexation of Azerbaijan’s
formerly occupied territories to Armenia.
Addressing remarks made by Arkadi Gukasian’s defense lawyer, the
prosecutor clarified:
“It is true that Arkadi Gukasian was a journalist. Being a
journalist does not automatically make one a criminal, nor was
journalism used as a political springboard. However, he is charged
because he actively fulfilled specific functions within the
criminal association – spreading propaganda and incitement that
facilitated the commission of violent crimes by other members. His
actions contributed directly to the illegal seizure of power and
other criminal acts, hence his liability.”
Finally, regarding claims that certain defendants – such as
Davit Allahverdiyan and David Babayan – were too young during the
First Karabakh War, the prosecutor clarified:
“While such arguments have been raised, it must be clearly
understood that no charges are brought against them in connection
with events during that earlier period. The indictment focuses
solely on their actions and roles in the criminal organization in
later years.”
Representative of the victims, Shaig Huseynov, stated in his
speech that the vast majority of defense arguments were based on
purely formal objections:
“It would suffice to recall one indisputable fact – during the
arrest of each and every accused person under this case, either on
their person or at their place of residence, various types of
weapons and combat equipment were seized as a result of search
operations.”
He added that it must also be taken into account that,
throughout both preliminary and court investigations, almost all of
the accused demonstrated no genuine remorse for their actions.
Considering the prosecution’s position, Mr. Huseynov requested
the court to issue an indictment verdict against the accused
individuals.
Another victim representative, Aydin Hajiyev, called upon the
court to impose fair and proportionate punishment on the
defendants:
“By delivering just sentences, the court will, even if only
partially, restore the rights of the victims. Their constitutional
rights – including the right to life, security, property, housing,
and safe living conditions – were directly violated as a result of
the actions carried out by Armenian armed forces and the accused
individuals.”
Rauf Abdullayev, another representative of the victims, also
requested the court to ensure that the accused are held fully
accountable and receive appropriate punishment.
Following these statements, the floor was given to the defense
for rebuttals.
Vugar Heydarov, defense lawyer for accused Vasili Beglaryan,
cited international judicial precedents, emphasizing that when
there is a contradiction between a suspect’s testimony during
pre-trial investigation and their statements in court, the latter
should take precedence:
“The testimony given during preliminary investigation is part of
the investigator’s evidence-gathering process. Therefore,
statements made during the judicial phase carry greater weight and
must be prioritized.”
He requested the court to base its final decision on his
client’s testimony provided during the trial when deliberating in
the chamber.
Azizaga Gafarov, also representing Vasili Beglaryan, argued that
the prosecution had misclassified his client’s level of involvement
and failed to correctly qualify the charges.
Pervana Gasimova, defense attorney for Arkadi Gukasian,
expressed confidence that the court would uphold the principles of
legality and justice. She formally requested the court to acquit
her client.
Dmitriy Zinchenco, representing David Manukyan, stated that his
client was a military serviceman at the time and merely followed
orders. He requested the court to acquit David Manukyan.
Other defense attorneys – Agshin Mammadli (representing Davit
Ishkhanyan), Anar Mammadov (representing Arayik Harutyunyan), and
Nigar Mirbabayeva (representing Bako Sahakyan) – also presented
their counterarguments in response to the prosecution’s
rebuttal.
After the conclusion of all rebuttals, the accused were granted
their final right to speak.
Presiding Judge Zeynal Agayev reminded those present that no
questions may be directed to the accused during their final
statements.
During his statement, Levon Balayan denied any guilt and
added:
“I did have a weapon, but I never fired at people – shots were
fired into the air.”
Madat Babayan claimed he did not kill anyone and stated he only
fired into the air.
Garik Martirosyan declared that he did not consider himself
guilty.
Melikset Pashayan reiterated his previous testimony: he admitted
being in villages of Aghdam but denied participation in combat
operations. He added that he served at a checkpoint for three
months in 2023.
Davit Allahverdiyan stated he committed no crime and had always
acted within the bounds of the law.
Gurgen Stepanyan affirmed that he does not consider himself
guilty.
Erik Ghazaryan said he served as a soldier in the Armed Forces
of Armenia from 2021 to 2023 and fulfilled his military duties
accordingly. He denied the allegations against him and stated he
does not regard himself as guilty.
Vasili Beglaryan maintained that he committed no crimes, was not
a member of any criminal group, and does not consider himself
guilty.
David Manukyan presented counterarguments to the claims made by
the prosecution during his final statement.
As the hearing concluded before David Manukyan could complete
his final remarks, the court announced a recess, with his statement
scheduled to continue at the next session.
The court proceedings will resume on December 19.
Fifteen defendants of Armenian origin are accused in the
criminal case concerning numerous crimes committed during the
aggressive war waged by the Armenian state - including the
aforementioned criminal association - on the territory of
Azerbaijan, in violation of domestic and international legal norms.
These crimes were committed for the purpose of military aggression
against Azerbaijan and were carried out under the direct leadership
and participation of the Armenian state, officials of its state
institutions, its armed forces, and illegal armed formations,
through their written and verbal orders, instructions, and
guidelines; material, technical, and personnel support; centralized
management; as well as under strict control and under the
leadership and direct or indirect participation of Robert Sedraki
Kocharyan, Serzh Azati Sargsyan, Vazgen Mikaeli Manukyan, Vazgen
Zaveni Sargsyan, Samvel Andraniki Babayan, Vitali Mikaeli
Balasanyan, Zori Hayki Balayan, Seyran Musheghi Ohanyan, Arshavir
Surenovich Garamyan, Monte Charles Melkonyan, and others.
The following individuals - Arayik Vladimiri Harutyunyan, Arkadi
Arshaviri Ghukasyan, Bako Sahaki Sahakyan, Davit Rubeni Ishkhanyan,
David Azatini Manukyan, Davit Klimi Babayan, Levon Henrikovich
Mnatsakanyan, Vasili Ivani Beglaryan, Erik Roberti Ghazaryan, Davit
Nelsoni Allahverdiyan, Gurgen Homeri Stepanyan, Levon Romiki
Balayan, Madat Arakelovich Babayan, Garik Grigori Martirosyan, and
Melikset Vladimiri Pashayan - are being charged under the following
articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan:
Article 100 (planning, preparing, initiating, and waging a war of
aggression); Article 102 (attacking persons or organizations
enjoying international protection); Article 103 (genocide); Article
105 (extermination of the population); Article 106 (enslavement);
Article 107 (deportation or forced displacement of population);
Article 109 (persecution); Article 110 (enforced disappearance of
persons); Article 112 (deprivation of liberty contrary to
international law); Article 113 (torture); Article 114 (mercenary
service); Article 115 (violation of the laws and customs of
warfare); Article 116 (violation of international humanitarian law
during armed conflict); Article 118 (military robbery); Article 120
(intentional murder); Article 192 (illegal entrepreneurship);
Article 214 (terrorism); Article 214-1 (financing terrorism);
Article 218 (creation of a criminal organization); Article 228
(illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, storage, transportation, and
possession of weapons, ammunition, explosives, and devices);
Article 270-1 (acts threatening aviation security); Article 277
(assassination of a state official or public figure); Article 278
(forcible seizure and retention of power, forcible change of the
constitutional structure of the state); Article 279 (creation of
armed groups not provided for by law); and additional articles.
