23 February 2023 23:56

The comments of Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan dated 23 February 2023 regarding the decision of the International Court of Justice contradict the Court’s decision and are yet another attempt by the Armenian side to present its wishes as reality.

Initially, let us note that Prime Minister Pashinyan’s comment that the Court allegedly recorded the claim that the Lachin road was closed does not in any way correspond to the text substantiating the Court’s decision on provisional measures, and the decision does not state that the road was closed.

It is regrettable that the Prime Minister, who cannot accept the Court’s rejection of Armenia’s two main claims that the protest actions held by a group of Azerbaijani eco-activists on the Khankendi-Lachin road were allegedly “organized by the Government of Azerbaijan” and that “Azerbaijan obstructed the supply of natural gas and other utilities (such as electricity and internet),” distorts the Court’s reasoning on the matter.

Commenting on the issue of Azerbaijan’s duties on the Lachin road, the Prime Minister of Armenia apparently still has not properly understood the provision in the Trilateral Statement dated 10 November 2020 that the Republic of Azerbaijan guarantees the security of movement of citizens, vehicles and cargo in both directions along the Lachin road. Azerbaijan’s guarantee of the security of movement on the Lachin road must not be understood as creating conditions for cases of abuse of the road, and it has been repeatedly stated that the Azerbaijani side will not allow this.

In general, regarding the groundless claim that the International Court of Justice allegedly granted Armenia’s request, we note that the Court’s provisional requirement is not the same as Armenia’s request, and the Court’s conclusion is that Azerbaijan must “take all measures at its disposal” instead of “ensuring uninterrupted movement...” At the same time, the Court did not accept Armenia’s claim that movement along the road should be “free” and ensured for “all” persons, cargo and vehicles. Thus, the Court, additionally supporting Azerbaijan’s position, rejected Armenia’s demand that movement along the Lachin road be carried out “freely,” that is, without any control, as Armenia claimed.

In its decision, the Court took into account Azerbaijan’s efforts that it has taken and will take all steps at its disposal to guarantee the security of movement along the Lachin road within its powers, as well as that it fulfills the terms of the Trilateral Statement dated 10 November 2020.

The statement of the Armenian Prime Minister distorting the Court’s decision regarding mines shows that the Armenian side is again shifting the obligation away from itself on this issue. However, the hearings at the Court once again showed that Armenia’s reports submitted to international organizations stating that it did not produce or plant mines were based on lies.

As can be seen from the decision, the Court’s refusal to reconsider its previous conclusion that the placement of mines by Armenia does not fall within the scope of application of provisional measures is not a decision on the merits. This decision of the Court does not absolve Armenia from violations of obligations such as placing mines and booby traps in the territories of Azerbaijan, transporting mines produced in 2021 to the territories of Azerbaijan by abusing the Lachin road, and failing to provide accurate maps of mined areas. In general, we note that the issue of the mine threat will be considered separately by the Court on the merits.

The Azerbaijani side has repeatedly stated that the use of the Lachin road must be legal and transparent, and that cases of abuse of the road must not be allowed. As part of these efforts, Azerbaijan has put forward a proposal to establish a border checkpoint at the beginning of the Lachin road. This proposal has also been welcomed positively by international partners as a transparent mechanism and confidence-building measure regarding the Lachin road within the framework of the post-conflict normalization process between Azerbaijan and Armenia. However, Armenia’s refusal of this proposal without providing any grounds is an indication that Armenia is not interested in transparency on the Lachin road and intends to continue cases of abuse.