The International Court of Justice examined the claim of Azerbaijan against Armenia.
In his speech, Yeghishe Kirakosyan, representative of RA on international legal issues, mentioned that the lawyers justified that Armenia’s preliminary objections are fully justified, therefore the Armenian side is fully hopeful that the court will satisfy them.
Referring to the claims presented to the court by Azerbaijan, that Armenia has adopted a racist ideology, considering the so-called parade organized near the statue of Garegin Nzhdeh as the basis of what was said, Kirakosyan noted that some marginal groups sometimes abuse the freedom of expression in a democratic country, and Armenia is no different in that regard. from any democratic society.
Kirakosyan referred to the criticism voiced by Azerbaijan to his statement on denying the alleged occupation of Azerbaijani territory by Armenia.
“Azerbaijan’s representative insisted that Armenia denies its invasion and the oppressive response of the international community to the occupation, which rejects the illusion of self-determination created by Armenia to serve its own interests. Azerbaijan greatly emphasizes the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which Armenia had jurisdiction over Nagorno Karabakh under the first part of the European Convention. “Azerbaijan, however, ignores the fact that the determination of jurisdiction by the court, according to the precedent practice of the court, cannot be equated with the standard of recording the responsibility of the state for an international violation,” said the representative of RA on international legal issues.
Kirakosyan clarified that the European Court has never ruled that Armenia occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, and the same can be said about the resolutions of the UN Security Council, which refer to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and which were misrepresented by Azerbaijan’s representative and lawyers.
“The Security Council called on Armenia to continue and exert its influence to ensure the implementation of norms by the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, but never mentioned that Armenia is an occupying state, let alone an aggressor, but instead referred to the local Armenian forces, calling on the conflicting parties immediately to resume negotiations for the resolution of the conflict within the framework of the Minsk Group peace process. This is exactly what the authorities of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh did. On the contrary, as President Aliyev said, Azerbaijan has unilaterally decided that war is inevitable and the Minsk Group is dead. According to President Aliyev, it was Azerbaijan that started the second Karabakh war, which the representative of Azerbaijan did not try to deny yesterday,” explained Kirakosyan.
He also presented his next claim to the court, according to which the representative of Azerbaijan accused the lawyer of Armenia yesterday that the latter claimed that the Azerbaijanis had no intention of returning to the previously occupied territories, while the lawyer of Armenia did not say such a thing.
“In any case, Armenia has always been ready to ensure the return of refugees on the principle of reciprocity. Armenia agrees with the assertion of the representative of Azerbaijan that their return was an important component of any negotiations. But as I already mentioned, it was Azerbaijan that refused the negotiation format of the Minsk Group co-chairs. Moreover, the main principles proposed by the co-chairs of the Minsk Group did not refer only to the two-way return of refugees and the return of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan’s control. Among the fundamental principles, Azerbaijan has selectively presented these two points to you. The co-chairs also called for an interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh, which would provide security and self-governance guarantees, a corridor that would connect Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh, and the determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh in the future legally, through a binding declaration, would provide international security guarantees, including a peacekeeping operation,” Kirakosyan said.
He added that the co-chairs emphasized the principle of equal rights of peoples and the right to self-determination based on the fundamental principles, so in such circumstances it is difficult to see how the representative of Azerbaijan can claim before this court that “the international community rejected self-determination by Armenia to serve its own interests.” the Mogon term.’
“My last argument refers to the assertion of the representative of Azerbaijan that during the so-called occupation, Armenia did not allow UN agencies and other international organizations to have access in order to prevent Azerbaijan from filing a complaint about the so-called occupation of Armenia after the liberation of its territories. However, Azerbaijan knows that representatives of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh did not prohibit the UN from entering the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. The representative of Azerbaijan did not present any arguments to substantiate his claim. In fact, it was Azerbaijan that blocked access to the UN. Azerbaijan continues to do this even today. “Azerbaijan has repeatedly refused to cooperate with the ethnic Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, including on issues related to the environment and the Sarsang reservoir,” said the representative of RA on international legal issues.
At the end, Kirakosyan presented Armenia’s final arguments. RA, with all due respect, petitions this court.
1. Allow Armenia’s preliminary objection regarding the time frame of the court’s jurisdiction and decide and affirm that the court does not have jurisdiction over the claims and allegations of Azerbaijan that relate to events that occurred before September 15, 1996, namely, the parties entry into force of the Convention on the Protection of Civil Aviation.
2. Alternatively, accept Armenia’s preliminary objection regarding the admissibility of the claim and declare inadmissible Azerbaijan’s claims and allegations relating to events that occurred before the entry into force of the 1996 Convention, as well as inadmissible Azerbaijan’s arguments.
3. To uphold the preliminary objection presented by Armenia regarding the scope of the court’s jurisdiction to consider the case on the merits and to confirm by decision that the court does not have jurisdiction to consider the allegations and claims presented by Azerbaijan regarding the alleged environmental damage.
4. To satisfy Armenia’s preliminary objection, which refers to the subject scope of the court’s jurisdiction, and to confirm conclusively that the court does not have jurisdiction to examine Azerbaijan’s claims and allegations regarding the alleged environmental damage.
#ECHR #decided #Armenia #occupied #Nagorno #Karabakh #Yeghishe #Kirakosyan #countered #representative #Azerbaijan
