According to Siranush Sahakyan, we should wait at least two weeks for the decision of the UN court.
“I have at least two weeks in mind,” answered lawyer Siranush Sahakyan to “Aravot”‘s question, how long will the UN. The International Court of Justice decides on Armenia’s request for an urgent measure. She mentioned that since the issue is related to the application of a critical, immediate effort, as a rule, the Court makes a decision in a shorter time and elaborates.”Even under those conditions, as a rule, it can last from 1-2 weeks to two months. Considering that the Court discussed the issue of an immediate interim measure, and this is a request for a new quick estimate within the ongoing case, the Court will have the opportunity to decide in a relatively shorter time”.
Suppose Azerbaijan does not comply with the Court’s decision even if the Court satisfies Armenia’s demand. What tools does the UN court have to force Azerbaijan, and can it apply to the UN Security Council?
Siranush Sahakyan answered: “Here already, the nature of the authority and activity of the Court is a factor by which these decisions are made. If the state legally violates, does not implement the mandatory decision, or violates international law, this brings international responsibility. The other is that the Court operates under the auspices of the United Nations, and failure to comply with the Court’s decision is a threat to the authority of this institution. The structure puts into action its other bodies, legislative or executive, to implement the ruling requirements and guarantee the Court’s authority. Yes, depending on the circumstances of the non-execution of the Court’s decision, it can use the tools of both the General Assembly and the UN Security Council.”
Read also
To the question of to what extent Azerbaijan’s demands were by the provisions of the Convention on Discrimination, the lawyer answered. “If we talk about mine-laying, first of all, mine-laying is accepted in the context of ensuring the defense capability of the states, and the fact of mine-laying itself cannot yet testify to racial discrimination, and statistics or other points do not indicate that it has targeted, and in this way, it is possible to discriminate or exterminate the Azerbaijani ethnic group. That is why, even if mining is theoretically supposedly problematic in some places from the point of view of humanitarian law, it is complicated to justify it in connection with discriminatory policies. The main point of this case will be that mine-laying has no cause-and-effect relationship with discrimination, but the facts of mine-laying are also controversial.
In other words, the Azerbaijani side does not have sufficient evidence that the Armenian side deliberately planted mines in settlements or transported mines through the Lachin corridor. We consider this process very artificial; it is carried out to create a balance.” Siranush Sahakyan highly appreciates the chances of the Armenian side to succeed in the UN Court and notes. “I should mention here that Azerbaijan submitted a request for an immediate measure to the European Court, which was rejected. The demand of the Armenian side regarding the Lachin Corridor has been satisfied. It is quite a solid basis, taking advantage of which to organize a competent defense in the UN Court.”
Siranush Sahakyan answered: “Is there a direct connection; if the UN Court satisfies our demand, does it mean Azerbaijan should urgently open the road to Lachin?” “The problem of opening the corridor, unblocking it, restoring gas supply and other vital public services, and excluding their further disruption is directly set. Therefore, if the Court meets the demand, Azerbaijan will legally be obligated to unblock the Lachin Corridor. If it fails, this structure and other states should use the necessary political force to change Azerbaijan’s behavior.”
Siranush Sahakyan answered, “There was almost no structure left to put pressure on Azerbaijan, demanding the opening of the Lachin Corridor, so in this regard, is the UN Court the last resort?” “The UN Court is an essential platform that should have been used, and based on this court decision, political actors can be convinced to intensify the pressure. Their behavior is mainly manifested in appeals, but measures of responsibility still need to be applied. The judicial act can legitimize stricter standards by political actors, including sanctions.
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
“Aravot” daily, 02.04.2023
