Another voice from behind the walls of a Baku prison.
David Babayan, former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Artsakh, has spoken after the conclusion of the appellate proceedings against him, describing a process he says was never truly a trial, but a “theater” whose script had been written in advance.
Babayan was taken into Azerbaijani custody in September 2023, after Azerbaijan’s military assault on Artsakh and the forced displacement of its Armenian population. Nearly three years later, he is still speaking from captivity.
And he is not the only one.
Ruben Vardanyan has spoken from behind bars. Davit Ishkhanyan has spoken from behind bars. Davit Manukyan has spoken from behind bars. Now David Babayan’s voice reaches us again from the same place.
Different men. Different messages. The same walls around them.
Babayan speaks about fabricated accusations, charges carrying life sentences that were never raised during the trial, defense arguments being ignored or distorted, lawyers being replaced, and a judicial process overwhelmingly tilted toward the prosecution.
He also speaks about something even more personal: the serious health problems affecting him and other Armenian hostages.
But what comes through most strongly is not fear or surrender.
It is dignity.
“We may be behind bars, but we are not on our knees.”
For nearly three years, Azerbaijan has been able to imprison these men. It has not been able to silence them.
Their voices continue to reach us from Baku.
And we must continue to listen.
Read full transcript of Babayan’s statement below:
“Dear compatriots, dear friends, sisters and brothers, Armenians around the world, our non-Armenian sisters and brothers, and all people of goodwill,
As you know, the appellate stage of our so-called trial has now ended as well. But what trial are we even talking about? This was theater, with a script written in advance.
They did not even dare to correct the most elementary mistakes. At the final hearing, when the previous rulings were upheld, they introduced my defense lawyers according to the old composition, even though my legal team had changed during the proceedings. In other words, they not only failed to verify what had been written, they did not even dare to alter the prewritten script, not even to correct the obvious mistakes in it.
This was nothing more than a formal stage that we had to go through so that we could later use it in an appeal to an international court.
No members of the public attended the proceedings at the Court of Appeal. By contrast, around 200 to 300 people were present at each hearing in the court of first instance. Of course, they were brought selectively, in special buses. According to some information, they were also paid well. This time, however, there was no one.
One reason is that those people had already seen what was happening inside the courtroom. They saw the abuses being committed, the weakness of the other side’s position, our defense, our determination, and the strength of our arguments. Naturally, whether they want it or not, all of this gradually reaches their own society as well.
Some of the ideas being advanced are almost impossible to comprehend. For example, an alleged crime committed by one person is automatically attributed to everyone. They introduce legal concepts that are almost unimaginable in international judicial practice.
In my case, for example, two additional charges carrying life sentences were added even though they had never once been mentioned during the entire trial.
I only discovered this a week after the proceedings ended, when we were given an abbreviated written version of the judgment.
I asked that our statements, including our final remarks before the court of first instance and our main arguments during these proceedings, be provided on video to their Human Rights Ombudsman. They refused. They call this an open trial, yet they refuse even to provide the proceedings to their own human rights defender.
Another striking aspect is the repeated replacement of defense lawyers. Five or six lawyers have been changed during this process. One was replaced right as the appellate proceedings began.
I tried to find out why and was told it was for health reasons. During the hearing, I asked them to establish a video connection because I wanted to personally see how the lawyer was doing. They became visibly uncomfortable, refused to connect us, and merely said there was no threat to the person’s life.
At every opportunity, they interrupted us, prevented us from continuing our statements, and obstructed the proceedings. All of this will become part of what we present before an international court.
One of the defense lawyers here has also openly stated that they do not want this case to reach an international court because more than 95 percent of the accusations are fabricated and unsupported by evidence. And that is exactly the reality.
Let me give one specific example.
I was sentenced to life imprisonment under an article alleging that I had attempted to overthrow the authorities here and undermine the constitutional order.
I asked a simple question: Is there a single piece of evidence showing that, while I was here, I took part in any struggle for power in your country?
If that were true, then I would have had to have supporters across the country, organizational cells, some kind of network. Of course, there is no answer.
Every single one of our motions and objections before the appellate court was decided in favor of the prosecution. One hundred percent. In the court of first instance, the figure was 99.4 percent.
I even thanked them for the sheer number and quality of their mistakes, because these errors are extremely important for us. They will help us demonstrate what happened here and will contribute to restoring justice when we present this case before an international court.
It is also telling that evidence is replaced with substitutes: lies, fabrications, slogans, political narratives, ideological statements, and rhetoric.
At times, we tried to see how our statements had been recorded in the official documents. We discovered that what we had said was often omitted entirely or, at best, included in a severely shortened or distorted form.
This is nothing other than legal apartheid.
What can one say when it is officially declared that the scope of so-called unintentional killings must be expanded so that everyone can be accused of murder?
I also have health problems. I raised this in court and asked that it be formally recorded.
Of course, I have my suspicions. It is quite understandable that they would not want me to reach an international court.
And I am not the only one with health problems. A number of our friends are facing genuinely serious health issues.
In a sense, this is to be expected, because we are fighting for justice, freedom, and human rights in a cruel world. And that kind of struggle never comes without a price.
It is one thing to fight for justice. It is another to be imprisoned for it.
But know this: we may be behind bars, but we are not on our knees.
Let everyone understand that.
As for everything else, we remain strong.
Stay strong as well, dear compatriots and people of goodwill.
Our homeland still faces difficult trials ahead”.
