Subtleties of international law and how they are understood in Armenia

After the end of the Karabakh conflict, several platforms were created with funds from the diaspora; their task is to monitor what is happening in the liberated territories and to discredit Azerbaijan in the eyes of the international community. The efforts being made are very significant — unlike the results obtained.

"Academic monitoring" of the alleged Armenian heritage in Karabakh is carried out by both Armenian historians and propagandists, as well as by the Armenian lobby in academic circles in other countries. Over the years of the conflict, Armenian scholars have managed to create a kind of “bench of reserves” in the form of Western colleagues, who are handed the baton when it is necessary to give their propaganda campaigns an international dimension.

The Monument Watch platform is one such initiative. It was created by the “black digger” Hamlet Petrosyan and a certain Leiloyan?Ekmalyan from the Paris?based State Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilizations. These two have headed a team that monitors the state of the non?existent Armenian heritage in the liberated territories of Azerbaijan. It is very difficult to monitor what is not there, but Armenian scientific thought is not capable of such a thing.

The day before, Monument watch decided to correct the shameful situation in which Petrosyan's colleagues found themselves in the heated discussion about the legacy of Caucasian Albania. Hamlet Petrosyan, who got his hands full searching for "tigranakert" in Aghdam, knows well how to get numbers by multiplying by zero. Therefore, we will not go into the arguments given in the layout of this self-described academic platform. Unimaginable and blatant falsifications at the workplace of the black?digger Petrosyan in Shahbulag near Agdam make it easy to disregard any of his arguments.

In the Monument Watch commentary regarding Albanian temples, something else draws attention. It turns out that Professor Petrosyan and his accomplices are aware of the existence of international law in the field of cultural heritage. Who would have thought. The long?term illegal activities of this type in occupied Agdam and the shameless falsifications spoke of something entirely different.

It turns out that the professor at Yerevan State University is familiar with Articles 4 and 5 of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, which require states to ensure the identification, protection, preservation, presentation, and transmission of cultural heritage to future generations. He also, it turns out, knows about the existence of the Nara Document on Authenticity in the field of protection and restoration of cultural heritage, adopted in November 1994 at a conference in the Japanese city of Nara. There is also the UNESCO Convention of 2005, which enshrines the principles of equal dignity and respect for cultures, as well as the preservation of cultural diversity, and the Convention of 2003, which emphasizes the transmission of heritage between generations and its connection to the identity and continuity of communities.

It turns out that Armenian falsifiers and looters of artifacts were well aware of all these international acts, which means they deliberately violated them during the years of occupation. Gross falsifications in Ganjasar and Khudaveng, counterfeits, fabrications, distortion of facts, and the sacrilegious theft of relics — all of this was carried out by the Armenian side.

And here is what concerns Hamlet Petrosyan personally. The conduct of archaeological excavations by a state on the territories of another state occupied by it, as well as the appropriation and theft of artifacts, constitute a crime and are prohibited by the UNESCO Convention “On the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict” of 1954, the UNESCO Convention “On Measures to be Taken to Prohibit and Prevent the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property” of 1970, as well as the Hague Convention and its additional protocols. Moreover, the First Protocol to the Hague Convention not only prohibits the removal of movable property from occupied territory but also requires its return to the original territory upon the conclusion of hostilities. States parties, which are obliged to prevent the removal of such property, may be required to pay compensation to states whose property was removed during hostilities.

Armenia fully violated all these provisions. Frankly, openly, demonstratively, with a complete sense of impunity. When the “evidence” fabricated in previous years proved insufficient to substantiate their claims to Karabakh, a search for the notorious “Tigranakert” began near Agdam. Armenians usually look for “Tigranakert” on the lands they plan to appropriate. This is a long?standing tradition. And they needed to find it in the lowland part of the Karabakh region in order to consolidate their claims to these territories.

The black?digger Hamlet Petrosyan “found” it. And then, for many years, he spoke at various scientific venues, introducing the international community to the results of his criminal activities, absolutely without any fear or prospect of being punished for violating international norms. Before his release, Aghdam Petrosyan collected all the valuable archaeological materials, put them in boxes, and took them to Armenia. And, again, this was done openly, with proud publications on social media and presentations at scientific conferences. The stolen archaeological materials are now on display in Yerevan.

The same tragedy could have befallen the famous Azykh Cave, where Armenian black archaeologists spent many years searching for traces of primitive Armenian identity. This may seem like a joke, but it’s not. The collected material was placed in 50 boxes prepared for shipment. But the Azerbaijani army advanced too quickly, and the diggers had to flee empty?handed.

In general, Armenian figures should be more careful when citing international law as a witness. According to the provisions of these acts, Armenia must answer for a great deal. By raising a fuss over every little thing, the Armenian criminal academic establishment should keep in mind that Azerbaijan is not going to forget how the Armenian people treated Azerbaijan’s historical and cultural heritage. This includes approximately 8,000 objects of the material cultural and historical heritage of the Azerbaijani people located on the territory of present?day Armenia. Unfortunately, all this heritage has been completely destroyed, and international monitoring of the condition of mosques, caravanserais, residential neighborhoods, cemeteries, fortresses, palaces, and other structures that remain only in archival documents is impossible due to their physical absence. There are no ruins either — all traces have been carefully eliminated.

Let us also add to this the objects of Azerbaijani cultural and historical heritage that were destroyed by Armenians in the occupied territories. More than 700 officially registered monuments of state significance have been almost completely destroyed. These are only the objects included in the register; in total, the occupiers destroyed over 2,500 historical and cultural objects of various types.

When listing resolutions and conventions, Monument Watch should bear in mind that all these facts have been documented by the Azerbaijani side. As well as the facts of falsifications that took place during the years of occupation in Albanian churches. By squeezing modern stones into the ancient masonry, drawing Armenian crosses on the walls, and scraping off ancient frescoes that compromised Armenian theories, the occupiers did not believe that all of this could ever come to light.

They ran the appropriated churches as they saw fit and did not think that the day would come when the Nara document on authenticity in the field of protection and restoration of cultural heritage—which Petrosyan is trying to use to intimidate Baku—would loom over them in a very tangible way.