Yerevan /Mediamax/. The first Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, published an expert opinion on the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion issued on February 17, 2025, that reveals a conflict of interest that invalidates the outcome of a UN decision.

The group concluded that Ruben Vardanyan detention 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 member of 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. Ganna Yudkivska.

“Ms. Ganna Yudkivska, a Ukrainian lawyer appointed to the WGAD in October 2022, should have abstained from all cases brought to the UN Working Group against Azerbaijan. In short, she has a conflict of interest arising from her professional work as an active partner at Equity Law Firm, which has for years provided legal services and representation for the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR). This establishes a direct financial link between her and the Azerbaijani Government, a party to Opinion 46/2024 proceedings,” Ocampo stated in his report.

He stressed about multiple contraventions of UN rules, including Articles of the UN Code of Conduct which mandate independence, impartiality, integrity and the prohibition of private gain, as well as Regulation which requires recusal when financial interests overlap with United Nations functions: “Ms. Yudkivska’s failure to disclose her role or to abstain from related proceedings further constitutes a breach of Paragraph 5 of the UNWGAD Methods of Work, which stipulates recusal in cases where conflicts of interest exist.”

Ocampo also mentioned about close personal and political ties with Azerbaijan, Yudkivska’s husband - a Ukrainian politician accused of corruption – has.

“A possible proper remedy is for the WGAD to invalidate Opinion No. 46/2024 and request the original petitioner to submit a new petition, which would be processed by the WGAD on a de novo basis,” Ocampo concluded.

According to him, as a matter of transparency and accountability, and given that its entire reputation is on the line, the WGAD could respond publicly to these allegations. “Without any further request, the WGAD could provide more information on how this case was managed, who served as the case rapporteur and how they were selected, if Dr. Yudkivska ever disclosed to the Working Group members and OHCHR staff that her law firm represented the Government of Azerbaijan, and, if such disclosure was made, whether the United Nations waived this conflict of interest to enable her to participate in all cases relating to Azerbaijan,” Ocampo stated.