Lawyer Siranush Sahakyan assesses the chances of meeting Azerbaijan’s demands at the International Court of Justice.
“There are no legal and factual grounds for such a claim,” lawyer Siranush Sahakyan, representative of the interests of Armenian prisoners of war at the European Court, assured in a conversation with “Aravot,” referring to the second claim submitted by Azerbaijan to the International Court of Justice, with the demand to take urgent measures on the issue of landmines.
To remind, Azerbaijan appealed to the International Court of Justice to oblige Armenia to stop “Azerbaijani territories mining” and to stop using the Lachin road “to transport mines to Karabakh.” This was announced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. The message stipulates explicitly: “In response to Armenia’s intentional violation of human rights against Azerbaijanis, the Azerbaijani side submitted a second claim to the International Court of Justice to take urgent measures within the framework of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.”
We asked Siranuysh Sahakyan whether Azerbaijan has a chance to succeed in the Hague court because a similar claim has already been rejected once by that court. The lawyer answered: “Only Azerbaijan acts with that approach. Constantly creates a mirror image, trying to present an identical situation to the international community so that the international community’s reaction is balanced, artificially tries to put a sign of equality internationally for unequal situations. That’s why we have to see and evaluate the presence of this lawsuit in that political light.”
Read also
According to Siranuysh Sahakyan, the background also proves that the claim is artificial. “From the beginning, the Lachin blockade was approached as an environmental issue, part of an environmental initiative, and the state tried to hide its involvement in these actions. And since it was proven internationally that these environmentalists are fake and they are special service employees, clearly guided and financed by the Azerbaijani authorities, now a new narrative is being put forward: The Lachin Corridor is being used for non-peaceful military purposes.”
Siranuysh Sahakyan assesses the chances of meeting Azerbaijan’s demands at the International Court of Justice. On this occasion, she said: “Of course, I cannot rule out anything in the legal process either, but I do not consider that demand to be professionally valid, and I would not give much confidence in meeting those demands.”
According to our observation, in the lawsuit presented by Azerbaijan, it is stated that the Armenian side took away the mines, placed them near the Lachin Corridor, etc. Taking into account this attitude of Azerbaijan, how can one assess the probability of opening the Lachin Corridor in the coming days or weeks? Sahakyan answered. “It involves political work, and I do not see a direct connection between the UN processes and the delays in unblocking the Lachin Corridor. There are already calls from various states and structures to the authorities of Azerbaijan to clear the Lachin Corridor immediately. We also have the ECHR decision, which again requires ensuring a peaceful passage for the sick and homeless travelers on the way. It’s just that Azerbaijan, taking into account the increasing interest of other countries in energy issues of Azerbaijan’s resources, has positioned itself better and is using that positional advantage, trying to delay the opening of the Lachin Corridor. However, this problem can be solved politically. It is solvable not in the short term but in the long term. Certain complications are associated with the Russia-West confrontation in this region. They act from the point of view of opposing interests, and this resource is fragmented, under which there is competition, and it is not in our interests.”
We reminded that at the end of January, hearings on the Lachin Corridor issue are scheduled at the International Court of Justice. Then we asked: “what are your expectations from that process?”
The lawyer answered: “It is an accepted practice. The UN court also convenes oral hearings on the issue of immediate measures. This is a great opportunity to publicize the problem and to present the positions of the Armenian side in an argued form, not only to the court but also to the international community. I think the law protects the interests of the Armenian side, so in the case of well-prepared speeches, there will be a high probability that the UN court will reject Azerbaijan’s request. Moreover, the public hearings will further publicize the Armenian positions and the catastrophic consequences of this humanitarian crisis, perhaps increasing the responsibility of international institutions to act harshly.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
“Aravot” daily, 12.01.2023
