YEREVAN – What problems may arise for Armenian prisoners held in Baku following the closure of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) office there? What risks does the abandonment of legal claims in international courts entail, and how dangerous is the alteration of terminology regarding prisoners at the state level?
These and other issues were the focus of a discussion organized by CivilNet under the title “The Problem of Prisoners in Baku: Human Rights and Politics.”
Sahakyan: Armenia Retreating From Arena of Success by Dropping Complaints Against Azerbaijan
Legal processes are so important that the pre-signed text of the peace agreement includes a provision on them, Siranush Sahakyan, President of the International Center for Comparative Law, said Monday during the discussion.
Sahakyan said abandoning inter-state complaints was a “vital, central and important issue” over which lengthy negotiations were held, noting that Azerbaijan had “used all its negotiating leverage” to secure such a clause.
“The Azerbaijani side essentially did two things. First, it exercised its negotiating potential to compel the withdrawal of inter-state complaints. Second, to reinforce this, it initiated artificial judicial processes, applying additional pressure to secure the provision,” she said.
“This shows where Azerbaijan’s interests lie and where they can be harmed. Any legal process undermines Azerbaijan’s security, because truth neutralizes its aggressive policy. The only antidote to this conduct is legal action.”
She stressed that Armenia has been unable to secure advantages in either the military or political arenas.
“The only field where we have successfully advanced processes—both inter-state and individual—has been the legal one,” Sahakyan said.
“Now we are retreating from an arena where we have been victorious, and instead trying to remain in one where we have been badly beaten—where even issues of national dignity have been raised.”
Sahakyan: Cases of Executed Prisoners Exist; At Least 80 Enforced Disappearances Documented
The figure of 23 Armenian prisoners currently acknowledged in Baku reflects only those whose detention is officially confirmed by Azerbaijan and for whom verifiable information exists proving they are alive, Siranush Sahakyan said.
“This does not mean that from the outset only 23 Armenians were captured and remain in Azerbaijani custody. Developments have emerged revealing war crimes, in particular the execution of prisoners. There are cases where the body of an executed prisoner has been returned to the Armenian side, with corroborating evidence both of the initial capture and of the body later being in Armenian custody,” she said.
Sahakyan added that in addition to such executions, there are cases of enforced disappearances.
“Following capture, certain developments occurred after which we lost all information about these individuals. The Azerbaijani side adopts a policy of denial, refusing to acknowledge its connection to the disappeared prisoners or to provide any information about them. In such uncertainty, no independent international organization is in a position to locate the missing prisoners or confirm their fate,” she noted.
Although the official figure stands at 23, she said, many more remain unaccounted for.
“There are several dozen enforced disappearances. Human rights defenders consistently speak of around 80 cases—documented through fact-finding work. This figure cannot be considered exhaustive. At least 80 cases have been substantiated, but the real number could be far higher,” Sahakyan said.
According to her, among the 23 acknowledged detainees, eight are members of the Artsakh military-political leadership, while five were captured during the 2020 war.
“Azerbaijan is unlawfully holding not only those captured in the 44-day war of 2020, but also those taken prisoner and arrested in 2023,” she stressed.
Sahakyan also reported that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has recently visited Azerbaijan.
“We do not exclude that during the visit some Armenian detainees may have been granted a one-time meeting. I will refrain from giving details for now; we will issue a statement in the future,” she said.
Melikyan: From Pashinyan’s Use of the Word “Address,” It Is Unclear Whether Armenia Has a Demand for the Return of Prisoners
Persons deprived of liberty in connection with a conflict must be returned immediately, Anna Melikyan, an expert with the NGO “Protection of Rights Without Borders,” said during the discussion.
“International law in fact allows persons deprived of liberty in the context of a conflict to be tried. That is, a trial is not by default always unlawful. But if war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the like have been committed, then prosecution is an obligation, not a matter of discretion. Azerbaijan exploits this provision of international law very effectively. It is no surprise that it brings precisely those charges which are considered such grave crimes and for which there is a duty to take action.
This enables Azerbaijan, using international law at its convenience, to claim that these people are not prisoners, but war criminals, and therefore it is lawful to prosecute them,” she said.
According to Melikyan, the accusations brought against Armenians in Baku are clearly baseless and exaggerated, while Armenian defendants are afforded no guarantees of defense.
“Within just a few hearings, they record a finding of genocide. They want to show that the Armenian is guilty, that he has been convicted. This trial, or judgment, or show, is in reality intended to reinforce the ‘truth’ that Azerbaijan seeks to present to the world: that these individuals are terrorists, war criminals, and in no case should be released.”
Referring to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent use in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) of the phrase “persons deprived of liberty” instead of “prisoners,” she noted:
“This is a more neutral term, encompassing both civilians and servicemen, since the word ‘prisoner’ refers to servicemen. What concerns me more, however, is his use of the word ‘address.’ This vague, empty phrase leaves it unclear whether the state in fact has a demand for the return of these persons or not. And if Armenia does not have such a demand, then who will? No one else cares.”
Melikyan stressed that recourse to international judicial bodies had above all worked to Armenia’s advantage.
“Today Aliyev never misses an opportunity on international platforms to claim that everything done around Nagorno-Karabakh was carried out in full compliance with international law, and we do not object. If we do not put violations on paper and record them, tomorrow another ‘truth’ will be documented in the capital of another country, in another court.”
Kirakosyan: Peace Presupposes the Immediate Return of Prisoners
Peace, first and foremost, requires direct addressing of humanitarian issues, said Yegishe Kirakosyan, head of the Master’s Program in International Courts and Arbitration at Yerevan State University, Armenia’s former agent at international courts.
He was responding to the question of whether it is more appropriate to first resolve humanitarian issues and then move toward a peace treaty, or to conclude a peace treaty that might help facilitate humanitarian solutions.
“This is how I understand the very logic of peace, especially regarding the return of captured persons. Why do the Geneva Conventions stipulate that there is an obligation for the immediate return of prisoners of war between warring sides? The entire philosophy lies in this: when you end hostilities, you are obliged to promptly return those in your custody. That is one of the most important components of peace,” he said.
Kirakosyan emphasized that legal proceedings themselves are a cornerstone of peace.
“Legal processes are one of the building blocks of peace, one of the bricks in its foundation. They provide guarantees, especially in the case of conflicts with complex and deep historical roots, where there are factual disputes and certain historical disagreements. The trial process has a crucial meaning: it allows you to establish the facts through the process of proof.”
He added that in such conflicts there is also a battle of narratives.
“Each side, especially non-democratic regimes, seeks to make its so-called ‘truth’ the dominant and prevailing one. But if we think about the very purpose of international law, the preservation of the entire normative system of international law is precisely about ensuring peace,” Kirakosyan said.
Kirakosyan: If You Remove International Judicial Processes, All That Remains Are Baku’s Trials
It is not correct to regard the proceedings in Baku as trials, because they are tightly controlled, directed, and follow a set purpose and script, said Yegishe Kirakosyan.
He underlined the central importance of international legal processes.
“When you remove international judicial processes from the entire equation—take them out of the overall picture—what remains are the Baku trials.
It is clear that the Baku trials will continue, and it is clear that a one-sided truth will be imposed. But imposing a one-sided truth will not yield good consequences, even in the long term. What is peace about, after all? I believe peace must also be about truth. It is obvious that war crimes and systematic human rights violations have not been one-sided. In wartime, violations can occur on both sides. The point of international judicial processes is precisely to provide equal opportunity to set the historical record correctly. Without them, you lose that possibility,” he said.
Kirakosyan expressed hope that independent judicial proceedings will continue and remain consistent.
“These processes are extremely important security guarantees in themselves, especially in terms of protecting the rights of detained persons,” he noted.
He dismissed as absurd the notion that international legal action could endanger the detainees or worsen their conditions.
“It is very dangerous to think that way; it can trap you in a vicious circle. However undesirable Azerbaijan’s attitude toward international court rulings may be, these steps are not meaningless. Even for countries of similar nature, international judicial processes have a real impact. They certainly influence state behavior, restrict the scope of state action, and create additional constraints politically, reputationally, and in many other respects that are crucial in the long run.
It is important that the process of pursuing compliance with the decisions of international courts be continuous,” Kirakosyan said.