‘This Is a Politically Motivated Trial,’ Says Jailed Artsakh Leader

Davit Ishkhanyan

Artsakh’s former Parliament Speaker Davit Ishkhanyan, who is a serving life sentence in a Baku prison, issued a new message that circulated on Thursday through his family.

Ishkhanyan is one the former Artsakh leaders who was on trial in Azerbaijan on sham charges. They were given long sentences ranging from 20 years to life at the conclusion of the bogus court proceedings.

In the new audio recording Ishkhanyan discusses his and his fellow hostages’ appeals hearing, which are taking place in a Baku court. He also sheds light on their efforts to appeal their cases to international courts.

He called the proceeding “politically motivated” and a sham.

Below is a transcription of his audio recording translated into English.

The so-called “peace” trial continues. As you know, the case is now before the Court of Appeals. We fully understand that this stage is largely procedural in nature and that there is little chance the ruling issued by the court of first instance will be altered.

However, recognizing that the path to international judicial bodies runs through this stage, we filed an appeal. We stated this openly before the court; there is nothing secret about it.

Some defense attorneys have already expressed concern during the hearings that taking a case built on such proceedings and such evidence before an international court would be both difficult and embarrassing for them. They have publicly declared from the courtroom that they do not wish to proceed to an international court under these circumstances only to face defeat.

What happens afterward is another matter.

The court continues to speak of openness, fairness, and justice, yet, as was the case in the court of first instance, there has been no meaningful change.

Last week it was my turn to address the court. I explained why I had appealed to the Court of Appeals. My remarks were nearly identical to the final statement I delivered before the court of first instance. Once again, I emphasized that this is a politically motivated trial that has nothing to do with criminal offenses. It is a trial driven by ethnic identity and national hatred, and the entire process has unfolded in that atmosphere.

I also pointed out that the court of first instance flagrantly violated the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, as well as the fundamental principles of human rights and international law.

My remarks were repeatedly interrupted by unwarranted interventions from both the prosecutors and the presiding judge. Nevertheless, I was able to complete my statement and presented, article by article, how the verdict was based on unfounded allegations, defamation, and accusations unsupported by evidence or concrete facts. I demonstrated how provisions of Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code had been arbitrarily applied and improperly attributed not only to me, but to all of us. I even remarked that this is not merely a “fabricated case,” but rather a patchwork of disconnected accusations.

For example, a person born in 1993 is accused of participating in military operations that took place between 1991 and 1994. The court claims this was proven during the proceedings, incorporates it into the verdict, and ultimately sentences that individual to 15 years in prison.
As I stated before the court of first instance, I reiterated here that this is a trial directed against the Armenian people and Armenian statehood, pursued with a clearly defined strategy and long-term objectives.

What matters most for us is maintaining sound judgment. We continue our efforts patiently, consistently, and with purpose. Our statements before the court have been dignified.
As for international courts and judicial institutions, the attitude toward them here is one of open contempt. Most troubling, however, is that we are told directly: “If your own authorities are doing nothing and have no interest in securing your return, then what do you expect from international courts? What can they possibly do?”

That is the reality.

Reports are already circulating that the Supreme Court will likely refuse to hear our cases. Efforts are underway to create a prejudicial atmosphere and influence the process through various artificial obstacles. For example, for nearly a year the issue of our legal authorizations has remained unresolved. Since August 2025, neither I nor several of the others have been able to grant powers of attorney to our relatives or human rights advocates.

Imagine that, to this day, defense attorneys still have not been provided with the indictment, the prosecutorial findings, or even a copy of the verdict. Only after repeated requests did the judge rule that defense counsel would be allowed to review the verdict electronically. In other words, they are still not permitted to possess a copy of the document.

I repeat: we continue to make dignified statements before the court, we await the conclusion of this stage, and we will continue to pursue our course with determination.
Everything else is normal.

Take care, and stay strong.

—