These political “swings,” steeped in geopolitical undertones, reflect the contradictory and often inconsistent policies of the Armenian government leader. A recent example of this approach can be found in his statements made in January 2024, which have quickly become a topic of debate.
Let’s begin with January 22, 2024. Amid the Baku “Nuremberg Process,” Nikol Pashinyan stated, “We approach this situation with the logic of doing no harm.” However, just three days later, on January 25, he made another statement that raised many questions. The Prime Minister claimed that “prohibited psychotropic substances may be used to extract testimonies” from Armenians arrested for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Such a claim, to put it mildly, does not hold up to scrutiny.
A logical question arises: why would the Azerbaijani side resort to such methods? Is there even a need for this, considering the accused have openly declared their intentions and actions for decades, often with pride? They publicly articulated their plans, which flagrantly ignored international law. These statements are easily accessible in open sources.
For instance, former “president” of the self-proclaimed “NKR” Arkadi Ghukasyan. In 2002, he stated, “We exclude the possibility of Nagorno-Karabakh subordinating to Azerbaijan.” In 2005, he added, “Nagorno-Karabakh is firmly standing on its feet, and I believe it has a future.” In 2007, he made another bold statement: “Karabakh has established itself as a state and is not going to abandon its independence. We must always be strong in all areas.”
His successor, Bako Sahakyan, adhered to similar rhetoric. In 2008, he noted, “The stronger Armenia is, the stronger Karabakh will be.” In 2010, he categorically stated, “The conflict with Azerbaijan can only be resolved through legal recognition of an independent ‘NKR.’” In 2016, he emphasized, “There will be no return to the past, including on the issue of territories.” In 2020, just months before their defeat, he said, “Our army is ready to deliver a worthy counterstrike to any encroachment.”
The next “president,” Arayik Harutyunyan, was no exception. In January 2020, he asserted, “We must have a qualitatively new army.” In June 2021, he declared, “The independence agenda remains.” In December 2022, he insisted, “Karabakh has no future within Azerbaijan. The independent status of Artsakh is not subject to negotiation.”
These statements and the actions of their authors clearly indicate a deliberate course toward separatism, supported by certain external forces. Such disregard for international law rightly draws criticism. A clear question arises: why would there be any need for the use of psychotropic substances when the accused have been so demonstratively vocal about their violations of international law? The answer is evident: there is no such necessity.
In addition to the aforementioned figures, other individuals whose statements and actions also contributed to fueling the conflict should be mentioned. For example, David Babayan, who in 2016 suggested that Azerbaijan’s leadership “make a choice,” predicting their possible presence at “tea-drinking” in Khankendi under various circumstances. Levon Mnatsakanyan, referred to as the “Minister of Defense” of the “NKR,” stated in 2017 that the army was ready to deliver a “final strike,” and in 2018 threatened with the possibility of “paralyzing Azerbaijan’s economy.”
Another prominent figure is Ruben Vardanyan, appointed as “State Minister.” In November 2022, he spoke of the need for “positioning the region in the international arena,” and in December of the same year, he said that residents of the “NKR” have only three options: “integrate into Azerbaijan, leave, or fight.” In March 2023, he openly declared, “I am a supporter of an independent Artsakh, so we must fight,” and in September of the same year, he called for the unification of Armenia and “Artsakh.”
It is worth noting that representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross have already visited the detained Armenians accused of war crimes and met with them in private. This further confirms that the detainees are being held in conditions fully compliant with international standards.
However, it is essential to return to the context of the crimes. Those currently under investigation participated in ethnic cleansing for decades, destroyed Azerbaijan’s cultural and historical heritage, and engaged in the forced relocation of the local population. These crimes span a wide range of violations, from genocide to environmental damage. Additionally, war crimes against civilians should be mentioned. For instance, in October 2020, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, in his address to the nation following the missile attack on the city of Ganja, described the event as “a clear manifestation of the fascist nature of Armenia’s leadership.” He emphasized that the crimes committed by Armenia’s leadership would not go unpunished.
Notably, Pashinyan’s claims about the possible use of psychotropic substances appear particularly absurd in light of all the above. As the facts show, the Azerbaijani side adheres strictly to the principles of law, and the accused will face a trial that will determine their guilt and appropriate punishment.
Thus, the Baku “Nuremberg Process” demonstrates Azerbaijan’s commitment to fair proceedings. Those brought to justice will be judged for their actions strictly in accordance with the law. Any assumptions about the use of illegal methods of influence on them, such as those voiced by Pashinyan, are groundless and do not hold water.
