On June 24, representatives in the case “V. T. and Others v. Azerbaijan” - Siranush Sahakyan, Araks Melkonyan, Haykuhi Harutyunyan, Ara Ghazaryan, and Hasmik Harutyunyan - held a press conference dedicated to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case “V. T. and Others v. Azerbaijan.”
The case concerned the torture and killing of Armenian serviceman H. T., who had been rendered hors de combat as a result of injuries inflicted by the Azerbaijani armed forces during the Four-Day April War of 2016. The ECHR has delivered a judgment, providing a legal assessment of the factual and legal circumstances of the case.
During the press conference, the applicants’ representatives presented the Court’s findings from the perspectives of both justice and the international protection of human rights, addressing the potential legal and political implications that could come from judgment.
Following the publication of the judgment, the Azerbaijani authorities reacted negatively to the Court’s decision. According to Azerbaijani media reports, the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the ECHR’s decision as unfair, biased, and contrary to the norms of international law, and sent a note of protest to the European Court in this regard.
Human rights defender Siranush Sahakyan, director of the International and Comparative Law Center, emphasized that Baku’s reaction shows their aggressive attitude toward the judgment, as in Azerbaijan “instead of expressing remorse for what happened and committing to changing their practices, they accuse international institutions of unfairness. They have also advanced the false thesis that the European Court reached such a judgment on the basis of only a few testimonies. Let us clarify that in this case we have an unimaginably large body of evidence: the vehicle that was struck, the bodies for which forensic examinations regarding the injuries exist, other forensic examinations through which the head of the murdered Armenian officer was identified, we identified the perpetrator, there is his interview in which he confessed to the crime he committed.”
In addition to examining the interational legal and political ramifications of the case, the press conference outlined legal evaluations of the judgement and political strategies for its execution. Addressing state responsibilities and evidentiary requirements, Sahakyan underscored that the state functions as an internal actor, meaning the caliber of domestic investigations into crimes against Armenian citizens remains a critical factor.
“If the state at least properly fulfills this obligation and does not initiate interstate proceedings, that is one issue; it is another issue if the state loses evidence and fails, through official investigative mechanisms, to uncover and document what occurred. This omission can significantly reduce the ability of human rights defenders to effectively represent victims,” said Sahakyan.