What kind of foul game has the ECHR gotten involved in? Editorial by Caliber.Az

The civil protest action on the road from Lachin district through the city of Shusha to Khankendi has sparked the unhealthy interest of a number of international actors in relation to the residents of Azerbaijan living in the territory where the peacekeeping contingent is temporarily stationed. It is no secret that this interest is being fuelled, or rather the hydra of lobbyism is being spread by representatives of Armenia and their backers.

One of the tentacles of this hydra reached Strasbourg, in particular the European Court of Human Rights, functioning as part of the Council of Europe. On December 21, 2022, the Strasbourg Court made a decision on the request of the Armenian Government to instruct the Azerbaijani Government to apply interim measures. The letter states that "noting the extent to which the Government of Azerbaijan were currently in control of the situation in the 'Lachin Corridor' was disputed and unclear at this stage, noting, in addition, the obligation of Azerbaijan under Article 6 of the Trilateral Statement signed on 9 November 2020 to 'guarantee the security of persons, vehicles, and cargo moving along the Lachin Corridor in both directions' and reminding them of their obligations under the Convention, the Court decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the Government of Azerbaijan, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to take all measures that are within their jurisdiction to ensure safe passage through the 'Lachin Corridor' of seriously ill persons in need of medical treatment in Armenia and others who were stranded on the road without shelter or means of subsistence."

Quite a humane, at first glance, indication. However, delving into the decision of the European Court, a number of questions arise, the answers to which have long been no secret in Azerbaijan.

So, let's consider them step by step. The European Court referred to the Trilateral Statement of November 10 and Azerbaijan's commitment to guarantees of movement along the Lachin Corridor. It is appropriate to recall article 19 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights), which states that "the European Court of Human Rights is established in order to ensure compliance with the obligations assumed by the High Contracting Parties under this Convention and its Protocols."

Even with a very close reading of this provision, in its lines, words, and letters, and between the lines, it is impossible to reveal that the European Court ensures compliance by the parties with the obligations specified in any other document, except the European Convention. What is this – the abuse of its powers by the Highest Judicial Control Body in Europe? This is the first question!

The second issue also stems from the provision of commitments under the Trilateral Declaration. Following the victorious 44-day war in 2020, the Azerbaijani government submitted an interstate complaint to the European Court against Armenia, where it raised the issue of Armenia's responsibility for the almost 30-year occupation of Azerbaijani territories, ethnic cleansing against Azerbaijanis, destruction of their property, cultural, religious monuments, the bombing of peaceful cities during the war and other violations of the rights of Azerbaijanis. Subsequently, the Azerbaijani side has also sent a number of requests to Strasbourg under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, demanding to indicate to Armenia the need to issue full maps of the minefields in the liberated territories of Azerbaijan in spring 2021, to stop the mining of Azerbaijani territory during the post-war period in summer 2021, and to prevent the destruction of Azerbaijani property during the transition of Lachin, Zabukh and Sus villages under Azerbaijani control in summer 2022.

The European Court found no grounds for the application of Rule 39 in the above cases. In the face of the court's inaction, hundreds of Azerbaijanis have lost their lives or health by being blown up by mines planted by Armenians during the occupation and after the Patriotic War of 2020, hundreds of Azerbaijani homes were burnt down in May-August 2022 in the Lachin district!

Armenian armed formations have not been withdrawn from Azerbaijani territory, and transport communications between the East Zangazur Economic Region and Nakhchivan have not been opened. Where is the principled position of the European Court of Justice "taking into account the obligations under the Trilateral Declaration"?

There is more to come! In the issue of the treatment of sick Armenians and their removal from Khankendi, the European Court went along with Armenian speculation. Even if we assume that there are indeed seriously ill people in Khankendi who are in need of quality medical care (although no evidence has been presented to prove the absence of such care in Khankendi), should they be taken directly to Armenia? Why should Azerbaijani residents be transported to another country without examining the possibilities of clinics, for example in Ganja, Mingechevir, in Baku?

Besides, the court was presented with the proofs (which are in great numbers on the Internet) of the unimpeded passage of ambulances and ICRC cars on the road from Khankendi to Shusha and the assistance of our civil activists in a solution to such problems of the residents of Khankendi. The court did not bother to delve into this evidence. Even in its yesterday letter, the Court did not indicate that it had gotten acquainted with our arguments, simply referring to the requests from the Armenian side.

With this decision, the European Court in fact recognises its incompetence, fuels separatist sentiments in Azerbaijan, and, once again, exposes its bias.

It is nothing new for Azerbaijan. We can recall how on the eve of the hearing of the case "Chiragov and others v. Armenia" in the European Court its French president noted his disagreement with the consideration of the case in court, pointing out that the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is a political one and the court should not interfere in this process.

At the time, the court could not shirk its responsibilities because of the case law and legal arguments of the Azerbaijani side. Much time has passed since then and the position of the European Court on "non-interference in political affairs" has undergone many changes.

Unfortunately, the European Court's attitude towards Azerbaijan is far from objective. We see this not only in the "Armenian-Azerbaijani cases", although the Court's rulings on them most clearly reflect its political position.

Political experiments with the application of Article 18 of the European Convention in Azerbaijani cases are surprising for the legal community of the country. The European Court manages to find political overtones in breaches of the Convention, for example in cases of tax evasion, hooliganism, or prolongation of arrest (!). In other words, no violation took place in the case of arrest, but there was a violation in the case of prolongation of arrest, and it had political overtones.

It is clear that the European Court is not a lonely ship "in an ocean of human rights". It should not be forgotten that the court is a Council of Europe institution, and political decisions are taken in another building in Strasbourg, and possibly beyond. Therefore, Strasbourg structures should take into account that Azerbaijan is not going to remain a "whipping boy" and an object of experiments. Azerbaijan is an established state with an independent international and domestic policy and will continue to use all political and legal measures to protect its interests.