“Can a question arise whether the rights referred to by Azerbaijan are connected with the jurisdiction of this Court? Certainly not. You have already decided that way,” Armenian legal advisor professor Robert S. Gold countered Azerbaijan’s claims in oral hearings in the case of Azerbaijan vs. Armenia at the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ).
He noted that despite all this, Azerbaijan continues its desperate strategy of mirror reflections. Opposing the claims of the Azerbaijani side that there was deliberate and arbitrary discrimination by the Armenians, the professor said: “The Court does not need me to tell it that the areas we deal with have witnessed military operations of significant scale and brutality. Nor is it necessary to emphasize the fact that it was Azerbaijan that initiated large-scale military aggression. The side forced to resort to self-defense often resorts to laying mines. These are meant to slow down the advance of the enemy.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the placement of mines took place due to military necessity. In this context, no other accusation can be convincing. Is the area of mine surprising? And where else should the mines have been placed, if not in the places where there was a need for defense due to the military situation, in Yerevan? The mines were found outside the villages and settlements, located along the contact line, which is why their victims are servicemen. Referring to the clarity of Azerbaijan’s mediation, the professor stated: “A mine is a weapon that is indiscriminate by its very nature.
Read also
It explodes under pressure, not when it detects any racial characteristics.”
Regarding Azerbaijan’s demand that RA informs it about the locations of mines, Robert Gold assured that international law does not contain such an obligation. He added: “If one had to reveal the location of the mines, a significant part of their military use would be lost. The Convention does not contain such an obligation. Moreover, RA has already handed over the information about mines to Azerbaijan. It exceeded its legal obligations.”
The other legal advisor of RA, Professor Pierre Garzhan, also assured that the Azerbaijani evidence is incomplete and noted: “Even if it were found that the mining operations were carried out to remove the people of ethnic origin from those territories or exclude their return, it could not be derived from the convention that the state has any obligation to stop demining altogether or that it is obliged to assist Azerbaijan in demining.”
He noted that the measures demanded by Azerbaijan are so incomplete and wrong that they cannot be applied. Pierre Garzhan also stated that RA provided all the information about the territories from which Armenians were expelled after the war and said: “Therefore, how can Armenia know about the places where explosive traps are hidden if it is not in those areas? Explosive traps could be set, for example, by civilians who were driven from their homes.
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
