In February 2026, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev made the following statement in an interview with France 24:
"These people committed serious crimes against humanity. Imagine after the Second World War, the Nuremberg trials, and all those Nazi leaders, who were sentenced to death, in two months some would come and say, please release them."
When asked by the interviewer whether the comparison was apt, Aliyev replied: "Yes, absolutely. It's even worse, even worse. Their crimes were even worse than what the Nazis did during World War II."
Invoking Nuremberg is a classic device for legitimization through a great precedent. The calculation is simple: the audience will not check the details. For a domestic Azerbaijani audience, it works without fail. But on an international stage - in Munich - it is a risky move, precisely because the people in that room know their history.
Nuremberg is one of the few trials in history with clear, verifiable standards. That is precisely what makes a comparison to it such a convenient political tool - and such a dangerous one.
The Center for International and Comparative Law has prepared a special information and analytical report, presenting eight criteria which demonstrate that the two trials do not align on even a single criterion.
Report: Not Nuremberg
The report was prepared in cooperation with the Armenian Legal Center for Justice and Human Rights.