Jared Genser, the “international lawyer” of Ruben Vardanyan, has decided to defend his client in an unconventional way. He thanked the Armenian Foreign Minister, Ararat Mirzoyan, for supporting his client and then posed the question: “How can Armenia contribute to the release of these Armenian Christians held in Azerbaijan, given the absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries?”
Genser proposed specific steps: public statements and media diplomacy, support for families, negotiations with Azerbaijan, securing backing from the U.S., France, and the EU, continuing and expanding legal proceedings, appealing to the global religious community, and even involving the UN.
Let’s set aside the ironic question of whether it is possible to gain support today, for example, from the U.S., where Vardanyan’s associate, Samantha Power, was recently ousted from her position as USAID’s executive director. Not to mention that France and the European Union are currently far too preoccupied to concern themselves with Armenia in general or Vardanyan in particular.
What stands out is something else. Mr. Genser openly appeals to the “Crusader mentality.” Above all, the international lawyer repeatedly emphasizes that the issue concerns the release of “Armenian Christians.” He advises Armenian authorities to reach out to the international religious community.
It seems that Mr. Genser believes there are separate laws in the world for Christians, separate ones for Muslims, Buddhists, and so on. And if his client is a Christian, and moreover, an Armenian Christian, this should supposedly help him evade responsibility for terrorism, looting natural resources, financing illegal armed groups, and much more.
Of course, “double standards” have not been abolished, and it is entirely possible that a couple of public outcries under religious slogans can indeed be orchestrated.
But what will be the outcome? It hardly needs to be stated that no kind of public outcry, even under religious slogans, will make Azerbaijan abandon its plans to conduct its own “Nuremberg trial.” The stakes are too high, and the accusations being examined— including those against Mr. Genser’s client—are too serious.
But most importantly, a lawyer in court has clear tasks and opportunities: to steer the discussion into the legal domain, analyze evidence, present mitigating circumstances, and provide legal arguments in defense of their client, rather than engage in organizing public hysteria under religious slogans.
For a lawyer to resort to such tactics is, first and foremost, an admission of professional incompetence. This became evident when Vardanyan’s defense was unprepared for the fact that legal proceedings in Azerbaijan are conducted in the Azerbaijani language.
And secondly, albeit indirectly, it serves as an acknowledgment that in the legal and judicial framework, the international lawyer is unable to refute the charges against his client.
Yes, the trial is still ongoing, and a verdict has yet to be reached, but it seems that Mr. Genser already sees the writing on the wall. That is why he is grasping at anything he can, creating an illusion of frantic activity, just to keep receiving payments from the Vardanyan family—even if it has zero impact on the fate of Ruben Vardanyan himself. Genser has no choice.
