The withdrawal of Armenia’s lawsuits against Azerbaijan in international courts under a peace agreement could have far-reaching legal and political consequences, potentially undermining efforts to secure justice for victims of violations and prevent future abuses, international legal and rights expert Siranush Sahakyan warned.
Sahakyan, who represents Armenian prisoners interests at the European Court of Justice, told Panorama.am that the provision on the withdrawal of interstate claims is already included in the initialed peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, she stressed that the two countries’ decision to abandon the proceedings would not automatically lead to their termination, as that would ultimately be up to the international courts concerned.
Lilit Makunts, the prime minister’s chief of staff, said on Tuesday that Armenia and Azerbaijan could withdraw their lawsuits against each other before international courts after the conclusion of the peace agreement.
According to Sahakyan, the provision goes beyond withdrawing pending cases. It also commits the parties not to initiate new interstate proceedings over disputes arising from events predating the agreement.
“The provision has already become a treaty obligation, as it is explicitly included in the initialed peace agreement,” Sahakyan said. “The parties undertake not only to withdraw the cases they have brought against each other but also to refrain from joining other ongoing proceedings, including as third parties. They further agree not to initiate new proceedings before international courts over legal disputes arising from relations established before that point.”
Armenia has filed a case against Azerbaijan with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It has also lodged interstate applications against Azerbaijan with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
A separate case against Turkey concerns the 2020 war. Sahakyan said certain interpretations of the agreement could also raise questions about the future of that case, although its status remains uncertain.
She emphasized that withdrawing a case and formally terminating judicial proceedings are two separate matters.
“States may declare their intention to withdraw from interstate proceedings, but cases that have already been initiated can be discontinued only by a decision of the court,” she said, adding that the outcome would depend on judicial discretion and that there were insufficient precedents to predict how the courts would rule.
Sahakyan noted that the ECHR has previously continued examining cases even after individual applicants withdrew their complaints. The court, she said, has the authority to assess whether the interests of justice and human rights protection warrant keeping proceedings open.
She argued that this consideration could be particularly relevant to cases involving Armenian citizens whose rights have been violated and cases have not been remedied.
“If Armenia withdraws cases involving citizens whose rights have been violated but not restored, and who continue to face various forms of violations, the question arises whether the interests of justice would permit those proceedings to be discontinued,” she said.
Sahakyan did not rule out the possibility that the ECHR could decide to continue examining such cases despite the parties’ withdrawal requests.
She said a similar scenario could arise at the ICJ, given the particular importance of international obligations prohibiting racial discrimination.
On November 17, 2023, the ICJ ordered Azerbaijan to ensure that Armenians who had left Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) following the September 2023 Azerbaijani offensive could return safely and without hindrance if they wished to do so. The court also ordered Azerbaijan to protect their personal documents and property records.
On October 26, 2026, the ECHR sent additional questions to Armenia and Azerbaijan in a case concerning the 2020 war.
Sahakyan warned that terminating the proceedings could deprive Armenia of important instruments of international legal protection and weaken efforts to prevent similar violations in the future.
“If these withdrawals take place, they will effectively bring the pursuit of justice to an end. Azerbaijan is essentially seeking to legitimize the international crimes committed against ethnic Armenians by ensuring their impunity,” she said.
She described the potential consequences as serious, not only in legal and political terms but also from a psychological perspective, warning that the absence of accountability could encourage further violations.
“One of the key purposes of international accountability is to prevent future crimes,” she said.
Sahakyan also challenged the notion that the reciprocal withdrawal of cases would put Armenia and Azerbaijan on equal legal footing, arguing that the claims brought by the two countries were fundamentally different in nature and significance.
“Although the agreement provides for mutual withdrawals, the legal weight and significance of these cases are not the same,” she said. “Armenia has been subjected to aggression, Artsakh has been subjected to aggression, and Armenians have been forcibly displaced. Azerbaijan is the party that has established a military and political reality favorable to itself through violations.”
She argued that Azerbaijan’s counterclaims largely mirror Armenia’s allegations and are intended to create the impression that both sides bear equivalent responsibility.
“This is an attempt to draw an equal sign between the two sides and undermine the legal foundations of Armenia’s cases,” she said.
As an example of Azerbaijan’s legal claims, Sahakyan cited the ECHR case Gurbanov v. Armenia, which concerned a complaint over the delayed return to relatives of the body of an Azerbaijani serviceman killed during a 2016 border clash.
In 2023, the court found no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that case.
Sahakyan characterized several Azerbaijani lawsuits as primarily tactical, arguing that they were intended to serve as a counterweight to Armenia’s claims in international courts.
She said the potential withdrawal of the cases should be assessed not merely as a diplomatic or political concession but in terms of its implications for victims seeking redress, the enforcement of international law and the prevention of future violations.