Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said the country’s proposed new constitution should not include a reference to Armenia’s Declaration of Independence, arguing that the document reflects a “logic of conflict” that is incompatible with building a stable independent state.

Speaking at a press briefing on Thursday, Pashinyan said the declaration was drafted in a context shaped by conflict and that relying on it as a constitutional foundation could perpetuate that dynamic.

“It is impossible to build an independent state while proceeding from a logic of conflict,” Pashinyan said. “The new constitution should not refer to the Declaration of Independence because that document is built on that logic.”

The prime minister also addressed his earlier remark that Catholicos Karekin II, whom he refers to by his lay name Ktrich Nersisyan, and figures close to him had assumed leadership of what he described as a “party of war”. Pashinyan said the comment was prompted by his observations during church services.

According to the prime minister, he has attended services where clergy departed from the official liturgical text and referred to Artsakh.

“When references to the Republic of Artsakh are made in that context, it effectively means adopting a theory that leads to conflict,” Pashinyan said.

He argued that such language implies an inevitable return to confrontation.

“Every such sentence is essentially a call for war — whether today, tomorrow or later,” he said. “I cannot say exactly when, but it is a call for war.”

Opposition figures and war veterans on Thursday accused the Armenian government of gradually conceding territory and sovereignty to Azerbaijan under the banner of pursuing peace as they protested outside the government headquarters in Yerevan.

Shahen Harutyunyan, the leader of the Shant Alliance Nationalist Party, said the authorities had been making concessions in the name of peace for a long time.

“For a long time, the current authorities have been making concessions affecting our state borders and sovereignty under the pretext of peace,” Harutyunyan told protesters. He added that Armenia must learn lessons from its history and adopt the right political course.

Avetis Avetisyan, a war veteran, stressed that every part of Armenia had been defended through sacrifice.

“There is not a single square meter in Armenia for which blood has not been shed or a life has not been sacrificed,” Avetisyan said.

He argued that the government was gradually surrendering parts of the country under the slogan of peace and warned that such concessions could lead to a larger conflict in the future.

“If we do not stop this now, the 44-day war of 2020 will seem easier than what awaits us,” he said.

Avetisyan also said that peace terms were being dictated by Azerbaijan and expressed concern that the current negotiation process could weaken Armenia’s position.

The destruction of cultural monuments in the territory of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) by the Azerbaijani authorities may be regarded as one of the most significant cases of cultural genocide in the 21st century, aimed at eliminating historical and material evidence of Armenian presence in the region, according to Hovik Avanesov, Ombudsman for Cultural Heritage of Artsakh.

On March 11, a TikTok user operating under the name xanabat muhavizə published a video from the village of Khnapat in the Askeran region of Artsakh, which is currently under Azerbaijani control. The footage shows that a 12th-century Armenian khachkar (cross-stone) located beneath a pear tree in the village was destroyed under the pretext of “construction work.”

According to Avanesov, the incident constitutes further evidence of a systematic policy aimed at erasing Armenian cultural heritage in the region. At the same time, Azerbaijani state propaganda frequently attempts to portray medieval monuments in Artsakh as part of so-called “Caucasian Albanian” heritage, while many of these same monuments are simultaneously being deliberately destroyed.

“This contradictory yet purposeful policy shows that the reinterpretation of historical heritage and its physical destruction are being carried out simultaneously and in a coordinated manner at the state level,” Avanesov noted.

He emphasized that not only propaganda institutions but also Azerbaijan’s armed forces and other security structures appear to be involved in this process, indicating that the destruction of cultural heritage has effectively become part of state policy. Similar cases have been documented both in Artsakh and in Nakhchivan, where Armenian monuments were systematically eliminated in previous decades.

Earlier, on February 2, the Geghard Scientific-Analytical Foundation reported that the St. Mary Church in the village of Vaguhas (Martakert region) had been targeted by Azerbaijani vandalism. According to the foundation, at least one khachkar in the churchyard was broken and religious icons were removed from the church.

Avanesov stressed that the cultural heritage of Artsakh is not only of Armenian importance but also represents heritage of universal value. Its destruction, therefore, constitutes not only an attempt to falsify history but also an effort to erase cultural memory.

He further noted that the Turkish-Azerbaijani approach to the destruction and appropriation of Armenian cultural heritage is not limited to Artsakh or Nakhchivan. Similar patterns have appeared in parts of the Middle East, suggesting a broader methodology toward historical and religious monuments.

From a legal perspective, Avanesov emphasized that such acts cannot be viewed merely as domestic cultural policy. They fall under international legal obligations concerning the protection of cultural heritage.

The destruction of khachkars in particular is prohibited under international law. The “Art of Armenian Khachkars: Symbolism and Craftsmanship of Cross-Stones” has been included since 2010 in UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, recognizing it as a cultural tradition of universal value.

Furthermore, khachkar heritage is protected under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its 1999 Second Protocol, which provides enhanced protection for cultural heritage of great importance to humanity. According to Article 15 of the Protocol, serious damage to such protected cultural property constitutes a “serious violation” and may qualify as a war crime subject to international prosecution.

Under Article 12, occupying powers are obligated to ensure the inviolability of protected cultural property and refrain from targeting or damaging it.

Avanesov concluded that the numerous documented cases of destruction of Armenian cultural heritage indicate a coordinated policy aimed at erasing the historical and material traces of Armenian presence in the region.