SECRETARIAT / SECRÉTARIAT

SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
SECRÉTARIAT DU COMITÉ DES MINISTRES

Contact: John Darcy
Tel: 03 88 41 31 56

Date:    05/12/2019

DH-DD(2019)1452

Document distributed at the request of:

Azerbaijan

Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

 

Meeting:	1362nd meeting (December 2019) (DH)
Item reference:	Comments of the Delegation of Azerbaijan on the paper distributed by the Government of Armenia in the case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia (DH-DD(2019)1437) from 2 December 2019.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Document distribué à la demande de l’ :

Azerbaïdjan

Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.

 

Réunion :	1362e réunion (décembre 2019) (DH)
Référence du point :	Commentaires de la délégation d’Azerbaïdjan sur le document distribué par le Gouvernement d’Arménie dans l’affaire Chiragov et autres c. Arménie (DH-DD(2019)1437) du 2 décembre 2019

COMMENTS

of the Delegation of Azerbaijan on the paper distributed by the Government of Armenia in the case of CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. Armenia (DH-DD(2019)1437)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the Council of Europe is of strong view that the paper distributed by the delegation of Armenia on the execution of the judgment in the case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia represents a blatant misuse of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments. Above-mentioned paper provides nothing more than a disorderly compilation of over-recycled and hackneyed propaganda pieces aimed at denigrating Azerbaijan as a nation.

Despite the fact that Minister’s Deputes in their decision adopted at the 1280^th meeting in March 2017, (CM/Del/Dec(2017)1280/H46-1) invited the Armenian authorities to present in an action plan the progress in their reflection on the ways and means to execute the given judgment, the paper circulated by Government of Armenia reflects neither an action nor a plan projecting the execution of the judgment.This paper purposefully aims at distracting the Committee’s attention from the failure of the Government of Armenia to execute the judgment.

The paper confirmed that the Government of Armenia keeps rejecting its responsibility for the execution of this judgment, as determined by the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. Whereas, in its judgment on Chiragov v. Armenia case the European Court of Human Rights was very clear in deciding on the continuous violation of the Convention and identifying the responsible state for this violation.

The Court decided that “... Armenia, from the early days of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has had a significant and decisive influence over the “NKR”, that the two entities are highly integrated in virtually all important matters and that this situation persists to this day. In other words, the “NKR” and its administration survive by virtue of the military, political, financial and other support given to it by Armenia which, consequently, exercises effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories, including the district of Lachin.”

In the judgment on merits of 16 June 2015, the Grand Chamber found that there has been and continues to be a breach of rights of a group of Azerbaijani IDPs from the Lachin district under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and under Article 8 and Article 13 of the Convention, for which the Republic of Armenia is responsible.

In a separate judgment of 12 December 2017, on just satisfaction the Grand Chamber awarded each of the applicants EUR 5,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and GBP 28,642.87 (twenty-eight thousand six hundred and forty-two pounds sterling and eighty-seven pence), in respect of costs and expenses.

Furthermore, the Court didn’t find that the ongoing negotiations within the OSCE Minsk Group on the issues relating to displaced persons provide a legal justification for the interference with the applicants’ rights. It stressed that these negotiations do not absolve the Armenian Government from taking other measures, especially when negotiations have been pending for such a long time.

Along the same lines, CM DH at its first and second examinations of the case expressed serious concerns that the just satisfaction awarded by the Court has not yet been paid and, recalling the unconditional nature of this obligation, urged Armenia to pay it without delay, together with the default interest accrued.

Regretfully, the Government of Armenia takes the opposite stance, conditioning the payment of just satisfaction on the resolution of the conflict, and referring to the restitution in post conflict settings.

Taking this inconsistent approach of Armenia into consideration, if the just satisfaction is not paid soon, the Committee should move forward by taking necessary measures of securing the payment of the just satisfaction, without any delay.

In the light of all above mentioned, and bearing in mind the falsification of facts regarding the root causes, historical and legal aspects of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and deceitful accusations against Azerbaijan, the delegation of Azerbaijan feels compelled to respond to these allegations by providing the following background information:

Historical and Political Background of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

The present-day stage of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict began at the end of 1987 with the attacks on the Azerbaijanis in Khankandi, city of Azerbaijan (during the Soviet period – Stepanakert) and Armenia resulting in a flood of Azerbaijani refugees and internally displaced persons.  

On 20 February 1988, the representatives of the Armenian community at the session of the Soviet of People’s Deputies of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) adopted a decision to send a petition to the Supreme Soviets of the Azerbaijan SSR and the Armenian SSR for the transfer of the NKAO from the Azerbaijan SSR to the Armenian SSR.  

On 22 February 1988, near the town of Asgaran on the Khankandi-Aghdam highway, the Armenians opened fire on a peaceful demonstration by the Azerbaijanis protesting against the above-mentioned decision of the Soviet of People’s Deputies of the NKAO. Two Azerbaijani youth lost their lives in consequence, becoming the first victims of the conflict.  

During 1988-1989 the Azerbaijanis were forced to leave Armenia. In the course of mass deportation at least 216 Azerbaijanis were killed and 1,154 people were wounded. The refugees from Armenia — eventually numbering approximately 200,000 people — began to arrive in Azerbaijan.  

On 23 September 1989, The Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan SSR adopted the Constitutional Law “On Sovereignty of the Azerbaijan SSR,” 5th provision of which provided, inter alia, “that sovereignty of the Azerbaijan SSR shall cover the whole its territory, including Azerbaijan’s integral parts – Nakhchyvan ASSR and NKAO”, and that “the borders of the Azerbaijan SSR with other Union Republics might be altered only by mutual agreement of republics concerned.” 

On 1 December 1989, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenia SSR adopted a resolution on the re-unification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh.  

On 10 January 1990, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted the Resolution “On incompatibility of the acts of the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR concerning Nagorno-Karabakh with the Constitution of the USSR”, where it was stated the unlawfulness of the unification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh without the consent of the Azerbaijan SSR. 

On 30 August 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan adopted Declaration of Independence.  

On 2 September 1991, the joint session of the Nagorno-Karabakh regional and Shaumian district Soviet of People’s Deputies declared the establishment of “the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” within the borders of the NKAO and Shaumian district of Azerbaijan. 

The Constitutional Act “On State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan”, adopted on 18 October 1991, established political and economical foundations of the Republic of Azerbaijan. 

On 26 November 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted a Law “On the Abolition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of the Republic of Azerbaijan”. 

At the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992 the conflict turned into a military phase. In February 1992, an unprecedented genocide was committed against the Azerbaijani population in the town of Khojaly. This bloody tragedy, which became known as the Khojaly genocide, involved the extermination or the capture of thousands of Azerbaijanis; the town was razed to the ground. Over the night from 25 to 26 February 1992 the Armenian armed forces with the help of the infantry guards regiment № 366 of the former USSR implemented the seizure of Khojaly. The inhabitants of Khojaly remained in the town before the tragic night (about 2,500 people) tried to leave their houses after the beginning of the assault in the hope to find the way to the nearest place populated by the Azerbaijanis. But these plans have failed. Invaders destroyed Khojaly and with particular brutality  implemented carnage over its peaceful population.  

Brutal annihilation of hundreds of defenseless inhabitants of Khojaly was one of the most heinous crimes during the armed conflict in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The Armenian armed forces and foreign military units spared virtually none of those who had been unable to flee Khojaly and the surrounding area. As a result, 613 persons were killed, including 106 women, 63 children and 70 elderly people. 1,275 inhabitants were taken hostage, while the fate of 150 persons remains unknown to this day. In the course of the tragedy 487 inhabitants of Khojaly were severely maimed, including 76 children not yet of age. 6 families were completely wiped out, 26 children lost both parents, and 130 children one of their parents. Of those who perished, 56 persons were killed with especial cruelty: by burning alive, scalping, beheading, gouging out of eyes, and bayoneting of pregnant women in the abdomen. 

Armenian officials deny their responsibility for the crimes committed during the conflict, including against the population of Khojaly, airily falsifying facts and sharing their own interpretations of them, which deviate not only from reality but also from elementary logic. Nevertheless, even the subtlest propaganda will never manage to disprove the facts that speak of a situation diametrically opposite to that represented by the Armenian side. 

Apart from the considerable information in possession of the law-enforcement agencies of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the responsibility of Armenia is documented also by numerous independent sources and eyewitnesses of this tragedy as well as is acknowledged by the direct perpetrators of the genocide. 

Thus, for example, Markar Melkonian, brother of the well-known international terrorist Monte Melkonian, while considering what has happened in Khojaly simply as a consequence of “discipline problems” and “insubordination” among Armenian military units, testified the following: 

At about 11:00 p.m. the night before, some 2,000 Armenian fighters had advanced through the high grass on three sides of Khojaly, forcing the residents out through the open side to the east. By the morning of February 26, the refugees had made it to the eastern cusp of Mountainous Karabagh and had begun working their way downhill, toward safety in the Azeri city of Agdam, about six miles away. There, in the hillocks and within sight of safety, Mountainous Karabagh soldiers had chased them down. “They just shot and shot,” a refugee woman, Raisa Aslanova, testified to a human Rights Watch investigator. The Armenian fighters had then unsheathed the knives they had carried on their hips for so long, and began stabbing. 

Now, the only sound was the wind whistling through dry grass, a wind that was too early yet to blow away the stench of corpses.

Monte crunched over the grass where women and girls lay scattered like broken dolls. “No discipline”, he muttered. He knew the significance of the day’s date: it was the run-up to the fourth anniversary of the anti-Armenian pogrom  in the city of Sumgait. Khojaly had been a strategic goal, but it had also been an act of revenge.  

In his book “Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war”, the British journalist Thomas de Waal makes references to words of the Armenian militaries. Thus, “[a]n Armenian police officer, Major Valery Babayan, suggested revenge as a motive. He told the American reporter Paul Quinn-Judge that many of the fighters who had taken part in the Khojaly attack “originally came from Sumgait and places like that”.  

But the most important was that the former President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan said of what had happened: 

Before Khojaly, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We were able to break that [stereotype]. And that’s what happened. And we should also take into account that amongst those boys were people who had fled from Baku and Sumgait. 

As Thomas de Waal sums up, “Sargsyan’s account throws a different light on the worst massacre of the Karabakh war, suggesting that the killings may, at least in part, have been a deliberate act o mass killing as intimidation”.  

The facts mentioned above confirm that the intentional slaughter of the Khojaly town civilians on 25-26 February 1992, including children, elderly and women, was directed at heir mass extermination only because they were Azerbaijanis. The Khojaly town was chosen as a stage for further occupation and ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijani territories, striking terror into the hearts of people and creating panic and fear before the horrifying genocide. 

In May 1992, Shusha, the Azerbaijani-populated administrative centre of the region within Nagorno-Karabakh and Lachyn, the region situated between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, were occupied. In 1993,  Armenian armed forces captured another six regions of Azerbaijan around Nagorno-Karabakh: Kalbajar, Aghdam, Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Gubadly and Zangilan. 

Contrary to numerous statements of the official Yerevan that Armenia is not directly involved into the conflict with Azerbaijan, there are indisputable proofs, which testify against such allegations and argue for the direct military aggression of the Republic of Armenia against a sovereign state. 

There are ample evidences proving participation of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia in the hostile actions against Azerbaijan. Since, the scope of this report prevents from providing complete list of available evidences, below are just a few well-documented facts of direct military actions of Armenia. 

Thus, in January 1994 the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan defeated the sub-divisions of the separate motor-rifle regiment №. 555 (Army unit No. 59016) of the Republic of Armenia in the combat and captured several Armenian soldiers. According to the documents seized in the wake of the combat operation, one of the units of this regiment made a dash in April 1993 from the town of Vardenis in the Republic of Armenia to Kalbajar region of Azerbaijan with the purpose of backing-up the group of Armenia’s occupation forces in this part of Azerbaijan.  

Among the trophy captured during the combat operations in Kalbajar region of Azerbaijan there were combat maps with battle-orders addressed to the commander of the separate motor-rifle regiment № 555 and to the head of the operational group, signed by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia, lieutenant-general G.Andresian, as well as working combat maps of the officers of the 3rd motor-rifle battalion of the 3rd separate motor-rifle brigade of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia. These maps are marked on with hand-written decision to launch an assault and seize Kalbajar region of Azerbaijan on 1 April 1993.  

Azerbaijani troops seized also many personal documents of the citizens of the Republic of Armenia drafted into the military and sent to Azerbaijan to participate in the combat operations. Among them are national passports, military ID’s issued by the different drafting bodies of the Republic of Armenia (“military commissariats”), call-up papers for joining military service and participation in the military musters issued by drafting bodies of different districts of the Republic of Armenia, official ID’s of employees of the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia, special contracts for the service in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia, travel warrants, petitions for conferring military ranks, drafting warrants, leave warrants and vocation passes.  

In 1992-1994, Armenian Armed Forces occupied administrative districts of the Republic of Azerbaijan as follows: 

May, 1992 – Shusha district;

May, 1992 – Lachyn district situated between the former NKAO and the Republic of Armenia;

April, 1993 – Kalbajar district (between the former NKAO and Armenia, to the north of Lachyn);

July, 1993 – Aghdam district;

August, 1993 – Fuzuli district;

August, 1993 – Jabrayil district;

August, 1993 – Gubadly district;

October, 1993 – Zangilan district.

On 30 April 1993, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution № 822, demanding immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from Kalbajar and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan. 

On 29 July 1993, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution № 853, which demanded “the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of occupying forces involved from the district of Aghdam and other recently occupied districts of the Republic of Azerbaijan”. 

On 14 October 1993, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution № 874, which called for “immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the CSCE Minsk Group's adjusted timetable, including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories”. 

On 11 November 1993, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution № 884, which condemned the occupation of Zangilan district and Horadiz town, attacks on civilians and bombardments of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan and demanded the unilateral withdrawal of occupying forces from Zangilan district and Horadiz, and the withdrawal of occupying forces from other recently occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan. 

In sum, the ongoing armed conflict in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan has resulted in the occupation of almost one-fifth of the territory of Azerbaijan and made approximately one out of every eight persons in the country an internally displaced person or refugee, 20,000 people were killed, 50,000 people were wounded or became invalids, about 5,000 citizens of Azerbaijan are still missing. 

The aggression against the Republic of Azerbaijan has severely damaged the socio-economic sphere of the country. In the occupied territories 871 settlements, including 11 towns, 848 villages, hundreds of hospitals and medical facilities have been burned or otherwise destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of houses and apartments, thousands of social and medical buildings have been destroyed or looted. Hundreds of libraries have been plundered, a great deal of valuable manuscripts have been burned or otherwise destroyed. Several State theatres, hundreds of clubs and dozens of musical schools have been destroyed. Several thousands of manufacturing, agricultural and other kinds of factories and plants have been pillaged. Hundreds kilometers-long irrigation system have been totally destroyed. Flocks of several hundreds of thousands of sheep and dozens of thousands of cattle have been driven out of the occupied territories to Armenia.  

About 70% of summer pastures of Azerbaijan remain in the occupied zone. The regional infrastructure, including hundreds of bridges, hundreds of kilometers of roads and thousands kilometers of water pipelines, thousands kilometers of gas pipelines and dozens of gas distribution stations, have all been destroyed. 

The war against Azerbaijan has also had catastrophic consequences for its cultural heritage both in the occupied territories and in Armenia.  

According to the preliminary data, the overall damage inflicted on the Republic of Azerbaijan as a result of Armenian aggression is estimated to be tens of billions USD. 

On 12 May 1994, the ceasefire was established. However, Armenia continues to violate the truce. As a result of the illegal occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region and surrounding districts of the Republic of Azerbaijan more than one million people have become refugees and IDPs.

Legal Background of the Conflict

The status of Nagorno-Karabakh region as an autonomous oblast within the Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan SSR) was stipulated in the Constitution of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) of 1977 and was governed by the Law on the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan SSR on 16 June 1981.

According to article 78 of the Constitution of the USSR, the territory of a Union Republic could not be altered without its consent, while the borders between the Union Republics could be altered by mutual agreement of the Republics concerned, subject to approval by the USSR.

On the eve of the independence of Azerbaijan, the unlawfulness within the Soviet legal system of any attempts aimed at either unification of the Nagorno-Karabakh region with Armenia or its secession from Azerbaijan without Azerbaijan’s consent was confirmed at the highest constitutional level. Besides the decisions taken by Azerbaijan, such attempts were invalidated by the bodies of the USSR with the primary relevant authority, such as the Supreme Soviet, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, the State Council or the Committee of the Constitutional Oversight.

Yerevan’s reference to the Law of the USSR on the Procedures for Resolving Questions Related to the Secession of Union Republics from the USSR of 3 April 1990 is also without foundation. As is well known, under article 72 of the Constitution of the USSR, only Union Republics, not their autonomous units or any other integral parts, had the right to freely secede from the USSR. Nevertheless, although the formal purpose of the Law was to regulate mutual relations within the framework of the USSR by establishing specific guidelines to be followed by Union Republics in the event of their secession from the USSR, the true intention behind that Act, hastily adopted shortly before the Soviet Union ceased to exist, was to create serious barriers to the path of secession of Union Republics and thus prevent the dissolution of the USSR. It is therefore curious to hear this Law being invoked against a background of claims to application of the right to self-determination, since that is precisely what the Act had limited.

According to the said Law, the secession of a Union Republic from the USSR could be regarded valid only after the fulfilment of complicated and multistage procedures and, finally, the approval by the Congress of the USSR People’s Deputies. However, during the short period from the adoption of the Law until the formal dissolution of the USSR, none of the Union Republics resorted to the secession procedure stipulated in it. In other words, the Law in question, groundlessly referred to by Armenia, had no legal effect whatsoever and expired before being operationalized.

Evidently, the definition of the territory of Azerbaijan as it proceeded to independence and in the light of the applicable law clearly included the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The factual basis for the operation of the legal principle of uti possidetis is beyond dispute in this case. Of particular interest are the following two examples.

The European Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, adopted by the European Community and its member States on 16 December 1991, provided for a common policy on recognition with regard to the States emerging from the former Yugoslavia and the former USSR in particular, which required, inter alia, “respect for the inviolability of all frontiers which can only be changed by peaceful means and by common agreement”.[1] No doubt, since the context was the coming to independence of a range of new States out of former federal States, the Guidelines constitute a valuable affirmation of the principle of uti possidetis.

 Furthermore, almost from their very inception as independent States, Armenia and Azerbaijan committed themselves – like other parties to the Alma-Ata Declaration of 21 December 1991 – to “Recognizing and respecting each other’s territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders”.[2] The 1993 Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), to which both Armenia and Azerbaijan are parties, stresses, in article 3, the principle of “inviolability of State frontiers, recognition of existing frontiers and renouncement of illegal acquisition of territories”.[3] Indubitably, a firm stand was taken by all the States members of the CIS to retain their former administrative (intra-State) borders as their inter-State frontiers following the dissolution of the USSR.[4]

Secondly, the situation following the independence of Azerbaijan and actions of Armenia is also clear. Any attempt by Armenia to encourage, procure or sustain the secession of Nagorno-Karabakh region is simply unlawful in international law as amounting to a violation of the principle of respect for the territorial integrity of States and imports the responsibility of that State. Armenia’s speculations with regard to the principle of self-determination have nothing in common with that principle, as it is set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 CSCE Helsinki Final Act and other international documents.[5]

The Security Council explicitly referred, in its resolutions 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993), adopted in response to the capture and occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan, to “the conflict in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic”, while “Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic”, as well as “the inviolability of international borders”. Similar language had been used earlier, in resolution 822 (1993).

The resolutions of the Security Council provide authoritative clarification as to the committed acts, the violated obligations and the duties to put an end to the illegal situation thus created. They qualified Armenia’s actions as the unlawful use of force and invalidated its claims over the territories of Azerbaijan once and for all. The numerous decisions and documents adopted by other international organizations are framed along the same lines. Thus, in its declaration made in connection with the capture and occupation of the territories of Azerbaijan, the Minsk Group of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is mandated to promote a resolution of the conflict and facilitate negotiations to that end, stated in particular that “no acquisition of territory by force can be recognized, and the occupation of territory cannot be used to obtain international recognition or to impose a change of legal status”.[6]

In its judgment of 16 June 2015 in the case of Chiragov and others v. Armenia, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rejected the Government of Armenia’s submission that the land possessed by the applicants, who were six Azerbaijani nationals forcibly displaced from the occupied Lachyn district of Azerbaijan, was allocated to other individuals “in accordance with the laws of the ‘NKR’”. In this connection, the Court reiterated its admissibility decision of 14 December 2011, concluding that “the ‘NKR’ is not recognised as a State under international law by any countries or international organisations” and, “[a]gainst this background, the invoked laws cannot be considered legally valid for the purposes of the Convention and the applicants cannot be deemed to have lost their alleged rights to the land in question by virtue of these laws …”.[7]

It follows from this that Armenia’s claims to the “independent statehood” of Nagorny-Karabakh are unsustainable in international law and thus null and void ab initio. Needless to say, the whole foundation of the international legal order would collapse if such claims had succeeded. In effect, by attempting to advertise and promote the illegal regime that it has set up in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, Armenia patently demonstrates its total disregard for the position of the international community and its unwillingness to comply with the Charter of the United Nations and the generally accepted norms and principles of international law.

The primary objective of the ongoing peace process, the mandate of which is based on the Security Council resolutions, is to ensure the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces from all the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, the restoration of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan within its internationally recognized borders and the return of the forcibly displaced persons to their homes and properties. The achievement of that objective is a must, not a compromise. It is equally inevitable and pressing, as the unlawful use of force and the resulting military occupation and ethnic cleansing of the territories of Azerbaijan do not represent a solution and will never bring peace, reconciliation and stability.