For nearly three decades, Azerbaijan endured the illegal occupation of its territories by Armenia, yet failed to mobilize the international legal system to challenge this aggression fully. While United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and the Chiragov judgment at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recognized aspects of Azerbaijan’s claims, the critical opportunities to escalate legal pressure were missed. Notably, Azerbaijan could have acceded to the Rome Statute, enabling it to refer crimes committed on its territory to the International Criminal Court. It also underutilizes U.N. treaty bodies, many offering quasi-judicial procedures to address systemic rights violations.
After winning the Second Karabakh War in 2020, Baku began to assert its position through law actively. Ongoing proceedings now include the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)-based mutual cases before the International Court of Justice, arbitration under the Bern Convention, and a pending interstate case before the European Court of Human Rights. While Armenia has gained some early procedural wins, such as provisional measures and a favorable International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction ruling, recent U.N. findings strengthen Azerbaijan’s legal standing. The international legal battlefield is now shifting in Azerbaijan’s favor.
The trial of Ruben Vardanyan has become a focal point in Azerbaijan’s evolving legal efforts to hold former separatist leaders accountable under international law. Detained in September 2023 while attempting to cross into Armenia, Vardanyan, who previously served as the so-called state minister of the unrecognized separatist regime in Karabakh, was charged with financing terrorism, creating and supporting illegal armed groups, and unlawfully crossing Azerbaijan’s state border. His supporters argue that he is being targeted for his political views and Armenian ethnicity, portraying him as a humanitarian and advocate for the rights of the Karabakh Armenians. However, these claims were rejected by the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), which, after thoroughly reviewing submissions from both sides, concluded that his detention was not arbitrary and did not violate international law.
The working group found credible evidence that his arrest was based on serious allegations involving arms transfers, the financing of violent groups and coordination with individuals linked to terrorist acts, supported by material evidence and formal court decisions. It noted that Vardanyan had legal counsel, access to family and opportunities to prepare his defense. While the WGAD acknowledged that certain public statements by officials were inappropriate, it concluded that they did not undermine the presumption of innocence. It emphasized that the charges were grounded in legitimate national security and public safety concerns, not political expression or ethnicity.
As a result, the case has significantly weakened Armenia’s claims of persecution and reinforced Azerbaijan’s legal position. It marks a broader shift in Azerbaijan’s international legal strategy, moving from a reactive stance to one of asserting its sovereign right to pursue justice for crimes committed during the years of occupation.
In its review of the fifth periodic report of Armenia, the U.N. Committee Against Torture (CAT) expressed deep concern about serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed by Armenian military forces. These violations include extrajudicial executions, acts of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners of war and other protected persons of Azerbaijani ethnic or national origin, as well as the dissemination of disturbing videos depicting the desecration and mutilation of corpses.
Although Armenian authorities reported that six criminal investigations had been launched, the committee regretted the lack of progress – no charges had been filed, allegedly due to the inability to confirm the identities of the perpetrators. The committee emphasized the urgent need for independent, impartial, transparent and effective investigations, and the prosecution of those responsible, including those in positions of command who failed to prevent or punish such acts. Furthermore, the CAT reaffirmed that torture can never be justified, even in situations of armed conflict and reminded all states that the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols prohibit torture in all armed conflicts, regardless of whether a formal war has been declared.
The CAT called on Armenia to condemn at the highest level all violations of international humanitarian and human rights law; ensure effective investigations and prosecutions for all alleged crimes, including extrajudicial killings, torture and ill-treatment; hold commanders accountable who knew or should have known about such acts, and guarantee redress and full rehabilitation for victims, regardless of whether the perpetrator’s identity is established. These recommendations reiterate a fundamental truth: the prohibition of torture is not only a legal obligation but a moral imperative. It applies equally in peace and conflict and binds all states, irrespective of political calculations or security concerns.
In this context, the CAT's recommendations to Armenia – calling for thorough investigations, accountability for perpetrators and commanders, and reparations for victims of the violations committed during the Karabakh conflict – raise the pressing question of how such decisions can be effectively enforced. Strengthening the follow-up mechanisms, including regular reporting and engagement with the CAT, is essential. In addition, civil society organizations and NGOs also play a critical role in domestic follow-up by monitoring compliance, advocating for victims, and providing alternative reports that keep the spotlight on unresolved cases.
To sum up, the recent findings of the WGAD regarding Ruben Vardanyan and the CAT’s review of Armenia mark a significant strengthening of Azerbaijan’s broader legal position in its post-occupation justice efforts. The WGAD’s conclusion that Vardanyan’s detention does not violate international law undercuts Armenia’s narrative of ethnic or political persecution and affirms Azerbaijan’s sovereign right to prosecute serious crimes under due process standards. Meanwhile, the CAT's stark condemnation of documented abuses committed by Armenian forces, including torture and extrajudicial executions, lends moral and legal weight to Azerbaijan’s longstanding claims of grave human rights violations.
However, while these findings strengthen Azerbaijan’s position in ongoing legal battles, particularly in terms of legitimacy and evidentiary context, they do not in themselves establish a violation of the CERD. To prove a CERD violation before the International Court of Justice, Azerbaijan must demonstrate that Armenia’s conduct was not only harmful but driven explicitly by racial or ethnic animus – an evidentiary threshold that remains to be fully met. Nonetheless, the direction of international opinion is shifting, and the burden on Armenia to explain these patterns of abuse is growing heavier by the day.
