Part 1 

W ithin the context of severe consequences and the post-war realities of the second Artsakh war, the urgent issues related to the Armenian historical and cultural heritage in the territories that passed under the control of Azerbaijan are highly topical. In particular, the policy of a continuous targeting of that heritage is one of the essential components, without which it is impossible to fully define the Artsakh issue and generally the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflictual relations. Moreover, it is practically impossible to expect a prospect of finding a peaceful and fundamental solution to the conflict without countering and preventing this policy. Accordingly, we will try to sum up the current situation over the last two years in all its aspects. The first part of this article describes Azerbaijani policy towards the Armenian heritage and the current picture of Armenia’s opposing to it, and the second part will present the international responses to the problem and some of their aspects. 

The Armenian cultural and religious heritage of the occupied territories of Artsakh in the target of Azerbaijan’s state policy 

I t is apparent, that using the results of the 2020 war, Baku seeks to irreversibly bring to an end its systemic policy of denial, expropriation and destruction of the Armenian historical presence and legacy started since the Soviet times [1]. It directly stems from Azerbaijani hostile, ideologically developed and clear strategic policy towards Armenia. Thus, the targeting of the Armenian historical and cultural heritage, as is emphasized by the cultural expert, professor Hamlet Petrosyan, is also carried out with clearly defined priorities, certain stages and specific mechanisms [2]. 

It should be noted that we do not have a picture of the full scope of the Azerbaijani targeting policy in the post-war period and the factual data are mainly from two sources. The first source is the photos and videos taken directly by Azerbaijan and distributed on Azerbaijani social networks and mass media. The second source is the Caucasus Heritage Watch research platform, where the changes in the state of the cultural heritage of the territories passed under the control of Azerbaijan are validated periodically using high-quality satellite images [3]. Yet, dozens of examples already documented since October 2020 are more than enough to record the full picture of Azerbaijan’s targeting policy. 

• One of the primary targets of Azerbaijan is the cultural heritage especially created after the liberation of Artsakh as well as during the Soviet period, including the monuments symbolizing the Armenian national and religious identity dedicated to national figures, the military and the military victories, as well as other values of modern Armenian culture (more details are mentioned bellow [4]). As a rule, they are physically destroyed, subjected to partial or complete destruction and vandalism.  

The newly built churches of the post-liberation period of Artsakh, which Azerbaijani propaganda presents as if the “occupation heritage” of Armenians, are also being destroyed in the same way. One of the vivid examples is the complete destruction of the Mekhakavan church and it is obvious, that the churches in Berdzor and Aghavno, in the Karaglukh village of Hadrut left under Azerbaijani control since August 2022 will actually have such luck (they will either be destroyed or turned into a mosque). 

• The entire arsenal of mechanisms of denying the Armenianness and transforming, expropriation and destroying of the Armenian religious heritage (religious buildings, khachkars, tombstones) left under Azerbaijani control is consistently applied. 

In this regard, Shushi is one of the targets of fundamental importance for Azerbaijan. Still in October 2020, deliberately violating all norms of international law regarding the protection of cultural values during the armed conflicts [5], Azerbaijan hit Holy All Savior Ghazanchetsots Church of Shushi, one of the main symbols of the historical, cultural and religious heritage of Artsakh and all Armenians with a double-tap strike. After the occupation of the city, expropriation of St Ghazanchetsots and Kanach Zham (Green Church) is carried out with a clear Azerbaijani strategy: their Armenianness is denied and falsely attributed to the Russian Orthodox heritage of Azerbaijan [6], they are subjected to destruction, vandalism and fake “restorations”, elements of authenticity and testimonies are eliminated.   

• Generally, at the core of the Azerbaijani policy of alienating the heritage of Armenian religious monuments from Armenians is the artificial attribution of Christian structures built before the 19th century (in some cases also in the 19th century) to the Aghvan heritage (or in the case of relatively late constructions, to Udian heritage). It is based on the propaganda that “there were no Armenians and they didn’t build anything” in the territory of Artsakh before that.  In this way, the direct consequence of denying the Armenianness of the churches is the program of destruction of its traces and evidences (construction records, inscription tombstones, khachkars and just Armenian architectural-fictional elements) managed at the state’s highest level. One of the vivid examples of it is the direct instruction of Azerbaijani president, who visited Thakuri church in March 2021, related to the making the structure Albanian and elimination of Armenian inscriptions. The similar targeting of St. Amenaprkich Church in Talish, St. Khach Monastery and  St․ Harutyun Church in Hadrut, Kusanats Anapat (Maidens’ Monastery) in Avetaranots (where the tribal tomb of melik Shahnazaryans was also vandalized) are also documented. 

Moreover, judging by the statement  of the Minister of Culture of Azerbaijan made in February 2022, on creating a special working group in order to remove “false traces added by Armenians” from “Albanian temples”, the process of completely annihilating the Armenian historical and cultural traces threatens all the Christian monuments in the occupied territories indiscriminately. In particular, although there is still no information about numerous structures, as well as about the current condition of khachkars and tombstones in Hadrut, as well as in the pre-war Kashatagh and Karvachar regions, and in the occupied parts of Martakert region, however, there is no doubt that the elements documenting their authenticity and history are either already damaged and destroyed or at least seriously endangered. Perhaps the most endangered are the monuments that were deliberately and significantly damaged by Azerbaijanis during the Soviet times (the church of Varazgom, the church of Vankasar, Katosavank monastery and so on).  

• Along with the above-mentioned mechanisms of expropriation, “standard” manifestations of the disruption of this heritage have also been recorded to date. Even in the case of those few examples, when no statements denying the Armenianness and usurping heritage of the churches built in the 19th century or later haven’t yet been made, however they were also not spared from the cases of vandalism and desecration by Azerbaijani military or civilians (e.g. the churches of Karintak, Mets Tagher, Jraghatsner, St․ Grigor Lusavorich chapel of Mataghis and surrounding khachkars). 

The case of Yeghisha church of Mataghis is a typical example of targeting the Armenian heritage in any way: being an Armenian church, it was desecrated by Azerbaijani military, and later, the church built in 1892-98, was presented as a “5th century Albanian church transformed by Armenians” and representatives of the Udi community of Azerbaijan performed illegal worships on the occasion of  “the Azerbaijani Armed Forces anniversary”. In general, Azerbaijan actively exploits the Udi community factor in the strategy of alienating the Armenian church and khachkar heritage from Armenians (Dadivank, Tsitsernavank, the church of Varazgom, St․ Hovhannes of Togh and so on).

• Armenian cemeteries are also being targeted with the tendency to destroy traces documenting the century-old and continuous residence of Armenians in Artsakh, using the road construction in the occupied territories for this purpose. Based on the data back in 2021, the 19th century cemetery of Mets Tagher, as well as historical and cultural monuments and numerous residential houses, the mid-18th century cemetery of Sghnakh, the district adjacent to St. Astvatsatsin church of Taghavard village were completely destroyed, the Northern Cemetery of Shushi (dating 1834-1920) was partially or completely damaged, and there are also some data about the destruction of the Kalen Hut cemetery near the Parukh village. Modern cemeteries of the 20-21st centuries are also subjected to vandalism, and the gravestones are often used as building material.
   
• The case of the occupied Shushi should be singled out again in the focus of Azerbaijan’s hostile policy towards Armenian heritage. Shortly after the end of the war, Azerbaijan’s state policy is aimed at the total transformation and expropriation of the entire Armenian historical and cultural environment of Shushi. It is obvious, that following the example of targeting Armenian churches and other structures with all the above-mentioned mechanisms, the issue is to completely get rid of Shushi’s Armenian face and traces, turning it into a triumphal monument and demonstration sample of Azerbaijani occupation of Artsakh. 

On the other hand, Azerbaijan is doing everything to ensure international recognition of its policy in Shushi, something which is not [yet] noticeable in the destruction and expropriation examples of the Armenian historical and cultural heritage in other territories of Artsakh. Meanwhile in the direction of international “legitimization” of the forced Azeriization of Shushi, apart from various diplomatic visits and other steps, particularly in the context of cultural expropriation, Baku has already managed to take a number of momentous steps, such as to declare  the city as the “Cultural capital of the Turkic World”, to nominate to include the city in UNESCO’s “The Creative Cities Network”, to organize various international conferences and events even under the high auspices of the UN. 

• Finally, in the context of the policy of expropriation and destruction of Armenian historical and cultural heritage, various Azerbaijani falsifications against history and culture continue. The obsession with denying any Armenian traces in any way is manifested by old and new propaganda theses, moreover, mirroring its own efforts and mechanisms of falsification to the Armenian side. For instance, the historical authenticity of Tigranakert, Artsakh which has been carefully documented by excavations, is labeled as “Armenian fiction” [7], and the entire historical khachkar heritage in the territory of Artsakh is either presented as “artificially aged and then installed” by Armenians, or directly as “Albanian” [8]. It is obvious, that the aim of such absurd theses is the “ideological justification” of already made and future attacks against Armenian heritage. 

Summing up the above-mentioned facts, it can be stated that the “cultural” war waged by Azerbaijan for decades against the Armenian presence, identity and historical heritage in the (historically Armenians-populated) territories under its control, especially after 2020, continues to rage in Artsakh with a new momentum, manifesting itself at the level of cultural cleansing and ethnocide [9].   

What’s more, actually neutralizing the cultural heritage of Artsakh and inducing a sense of inability to own that heritage, Azerbaijan seeks to destroy the continuity of the collective identity and memory of the indigenous Armenian population of Artsakh and to disrupt its social structure and practices [10]. It is obvious that the ultimate goal of this whole long-term policy of ethnic (demographic) and cultural purification (which is also consistently “cemented” by the Armenian hatred and hostility displayed up to the highest state level [11]) is the complete nakhijevanization of Artsakh. 

The current state and main directions of Armenia’s resistance

T he above-mentioned policy of Azerbaijan against the Armenian historical, cultural and religious heritage in Artsakh is an additional and at the same time a sensitive challenge for Yerevan in the post-war agenda related to the Artsakh issue and Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in general. Besides the moral significance of the issue for the Armenian side, it has a broader legal-political principal significance: Azerbaijani ethnocide policy (as well as other manifestations of Armenian hatred in general) is a serious threat to the future of Artsakh Armenians and the future fate of the part of Artsakh free from Azerbaijani control. 

Therefore, the cessation of that Azerbaijani policy, as well as further prevention also depend on the effectiveness of the counteraction of the Armenian. It is important to consider, what situation we have in terms of Armenia’s approaches and actions since the end of the war, also including in the context of well-known legal and political developments and changes in the post-war period. 

Hence, just in period following the war, Armenia tried to bring the issue of prevention and protection of encroachments against the Armenian cultural and spiritual heritage in the territories passed under the control of Azerbaijan to the agenda. Furthermore, both foreign political-diplomatic, as well as international and domestic [12] legal instruments were used. 

In particular, at the level of the RA Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the issue of the importance of heritage preservation was presented mainly in official communications in various formats related to the post-war situation with the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group and the ambassadors of the co-chair countries, a number of international organizations, as well as high representatives of the European Union [13]. It's noteworthy, that at the bilateral interstate level, the Armenian side intensively discussed the issue especially with France, on behalf of the president E. Macron, Foreign Minister, leaders of the legislative powers and other official representatives of the country. Moreover, if shortly after the tripartite declaration of a cease-fire, the Armenian side presented Azerbaijan’s previous destructive policy towards Armenian heritage as the main argument (1, 2) on the urgency of taking immediate steps, then after a short time, recorded facts of targeting Armenian heritage by Azerbaijan (1, 2).

From the very beginning, Yerevan considers the involvement of UNESCO as a main international mechanism for the protection of Armenian heritage from Azerbaijani targeting. Still on November 18, 2020, at the meeting with the representatives of Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Director-General of UNESCO Audrey Azoulay proposed to send a mission to the conflict zone, in order to draw up an inventory of the most significant cultural assets [14]. Actually, Azerbaijan rejects and defeats its implementation. However, since 2020, Armenia has regularly emphasized (1, 2, 3)  the need to ensure unhindered access to the organization’s fact-finding mission and the unacceptability of Azerbaijan’s destructive way of working in this issue [15].

Armenia’s political commitment to oppose Azerbaijan’s policy is also recorded in the RA Government Program for 2021-2026 and in the Government’s 2021-2026 Action Plan. Thus, the Government’s Program states, that the preservation of the cultural and religious heritage of Artsakh is one of the priorities of the foreign and security policy. And in the 2021-2026 Action Plan, as an expected result of cooperation with UNESCO, it is planned a “proper and guaranteed protection of the Armenian historical and cultural, as well as religious heritage and ensuring the access into the religious sanctuaries located in the territories of Artsakh having fallen under the Azerbaijani control.” [16] It should be noted, however, that the issue of providing access to religious and sanctuaries that are out of Armenian control has not actually been touched upon in Armenia’s foreign political and diplomatic agenda on the protection of Armenian historical, cultural and religious heritage. (Perhaps, the only exception in the period immediately following the war was the discussion of the issues related to the continuation of services of the Armenian clergymen and the access of the Armenian believers to the Dadivank monastery complex. In the later period, as it is known, the Armenian side in fact regularly faces various serious problems in that issue.)  

Actually, regarding the issue discussed in diplomatic field, the policy of Yerevan mainly ends up using the platforms of UNESCO, other international organizations (European Council [17], OSCE PA, as well as other international structures and organizations dealing with the protection of cultural values) keeping issues related to the protection of Armenian cultural heritage (including the actual lack of practical international response) on the international agenda and raising awareness about them [18].

As for the international legal instruments for countering Azerbaijani attacks on Armenian historical, cultural and religious heritage, the first step in that direction was taken immediately after the end of the hostilities in Artsakh, on November 11, 2020. Addressing the Republic of Azerbaijan with an official letter, Armenia, stated that “the Azerbaijani actions and policies adopted during the last decades are in gross violation of the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” and called on Azerbaijan to stop violations of the rights of ethnic Armenians to access and enjoy cultural heritage monuments. And on September 16, 2021, the RA filed a complaint with the UN International Court of Justice against Azerbaijan for violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, at the same time asking the Court to apply a number of urgent measures. On December 7, 2021, the International Court of Justice delivered its orders on the requests for provisional measures in the “Armenia v. Azerbaijan” case, ordered Azerbaijan, among other things, to “take all necessary measures to prevent and punish acts of vandalism and desecration affecting Armenian cultural heritage, including but not limited to churches and other places of worship, monuments, landmarks, cemeteries and artefacts”.

After the decision of fundamental importance made by the International Court of Justice, taking into account Azerbaijan’s continuing attacks against Armenian heritage (as a vivid example, the fact of the creation of the above-mentioned special working group by the Ministry of Culture in February 2022), Armenia regularly refers to that decision, up to the level of the Prime Minister. However, it can be stated that Yerevan has not yet managed to make it an effective tool to advance Armenia’s priorities on the issue in diplomatic sphere, first of all allowing the entry of the fact-finding mission of UNESCO in the context of developing effective international pressure on Azerbaijan.  

Summing up, it can be stated that two parallel trends are distinguished in terms of Armenia’s countering Baku’s criminal policy against the Armenian historical and cultural heritage. In the foreign political and diplomatic dimension, Yerevan mainly relies on the strategy of keeping the urgency of problem on the agenda through certain international channels and providing an adequate international response to Azerbaijani actions.  However, it hasn’t yet produced any tangible results in terms of preventing further targeting of Azerbaijan, let alone taking responsibility for those that have already been committed. 

At the same time, in the context of interstate lawsuit being examined at the UN International Court of Justice, Armenia achieving initial success with the interim decision regarding Azerbaijan, received a potential opportunity to turn into a diplomatic trump card. However, it is obvious, that the necessary interconnection level between these two parallel processes is still low. On the other hand, it should also be noted, that in the context of the current logic of the Artsakh problem and the regulation of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the post-war period, the Armenian cultural heritage issues are actually absent from the agenda of the Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiation process.