UN Working Group should invalidate its opinion on Ruben Vardanyan due to the chairman's ties to Azerbaijan: Ocampo

The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, has published an expert opinion on the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UN WGAD) Opinion No. 46/2024 of 17 February 2025, revealing a real conflict of interest that casts serious doubt on the impartiality of the group’s conclusion. The group concluded that the detention of Ruben Vardanyan by Azerbaijan was not arbitrary. In his expert opinion, Ocampo substantiates the existence of a conflict of interest, emphasizing that the current Chair of the WGAD, Ganna Yudkivska, is a partner at Equity Law Firm, which represents the state oil company of Azerbaijan, SOCAR, in Ukraine.

Luis Moreno Ocampo conducted an open-source investigation into the impartiality of the current WGAD Chair-Rapporteur, Ukrainian lawyer Ms. Hanna Yudkivska.

“Ganna Yudkivska should have recused herself from all cases against Azerbaijan brought before the Working Group. She has a conflict of interest arising from her professional work as an active partner at Equity Law Firm, which has provided legal services to the State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan (SOCAR) for many years. This establishes a direct financial connection between her and the government of Azerbaijan, which is a party to these proceedings,” Ocampo noted in his expert opinion.

He argues that this situation is contrary to the Code of Conduct and other UN regulations, which require recuse when financial interests overlap with UN functions: “Yudkivska’s failure to disclose this role or to refrain from related proceedings constitutes a violation of paragraph 5 of the WGAD’s working methods, which provides for recuse in cases of conflict of interest.”

Ocampo also noted the close personal and political ties with Azerbaijan of Anna Yudkivska's husband, a Ukrainian politician accused of corruption.

“In light of these circumstances, a possible equivalent remedy would be for the WGAD to declare Opinion No. 46/2024 invalid and request the original applicant to submit a new petition, which would be developed by the WGAD on a de novo basis,” Ocampo noted in the conclusion.

According to him, for the sake of transparency and accountability, and given that the Working Group’s reputation is at stake, the group can respond publicly to these allegations. “Without further request, the WGAD can provide additional information on how this case was managed, who served as the rapporteur for the case and how they were selected, whether Dr. Yudkivska ever disclosed to the members of the Working Group and OHCHR staff that her law firm represented the interests of the Azerbaijani government, and, if such a disclosure was made, whether the Working Group overlooked this conflict of interest by allowing her to participate in cases involving Azerbaijan.”