The topic of "prisoners" is closed, but... - how revanchists mourn the ICRC

Since September 3, by the decision of the Government of Azerbaijan, the International Committee of the Red Cross has closed its representative office in the country. The day before, the ICRC mission issued a statement stating that the International Committee of the Red Cross "will continue to cooperate with the Azerbaijani authorities to provide support to persons protected by international humanitarian law, in accordance with its mandate and the country's obligations under the Geneva Conventions."

The Armenian revanchist propaganda took this news as an excellent reason to start a conversation about separatists, terrorists, saboteurs and other war criminals who are imprisoned or on trial in Azerbaijan. The propaganda stubbornly continues to call these people "prisoners of war", although there is not a single person among them who was detained during the fighting. Lawyers and self-described human rights activists in Armenia should know the difference between prisoners of war and saboteurs detained after the end of the war, or the heads of the occupation regime guilty of many crimes against the Azerbaijani people.

There is no doubt that lawyer Siranush Sahakyan, who represents the interests of these individuals in the ECHR, is well aware of this difference. But it is convenient for her to call the saboteurs prisoners of war, as this allows her to appeal to international humanitarian organizations and accuse Azerbaijan of violating the Geneva Conventions. This version has always been actively supported by the Red Cross.

The decision of the Azerbaijani government was not just a whim, it had serious claims to the ICRC's activities in the country both during the years of the Armenian occupation and after the 2020 war. Shortly before the September 2023 anti-terrorist operation, President Ilham Aliyev, in an interview with Euronews TV channel, stated that it was unacceptable that the office of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Karabakh was still subordinate not to the Baku, but to the Yerevan office of the committee. It was really weird.

It looked strange during all the years of the Armenian occupation. Yes, the Karabakh Red Cross did not appear due to the active diplomacy of the Azerbaijani side and the Red Crescent, but the ICRC acted in the occupied territories without the consent of Baku, coordinating with Yerevan. Even after the Second Karabakh War, logistics in Khankendi continued to be carried out along the Lachin road from the territory of Armenia, and not along the Agdam road, as demanded by the Azerbaijani side. 

A lot of things have been done wrong over the years, and the ICRC should not be offended by Baku's decision to say goodbye. Unfortunately, this global humanitarian organization, which should have remained neutral, chose a side in the conflict from the very beginning. By and large, the humanitarian mission was not only humanitarian.

Azerbaijani human rights activists have repeatedly drawn attention to the ICRC's indifference to the fate of Azerbaijani prisoners and hostages held in the occupied territories and in Armenia. The Committee did not show much zeal in finding people based on the information provided by Azerbaijan. The situation was completely different in the search for Armenians, and from somewhere there was perseverance, enthusiasm, and determination in an effort to achieve results. After the Second Karabakh War, other unpleasant nuances became clear. For example, it became known that Geneva did not always control what the Yerevan office was doing, and often was not even aware of the actions of the ICRC office there. These "discoveries" only strengthened the Azerbaijani side in its decision to abandon the services of the Committee of the Red Cross. With the end of the conflict, there was no need for the ICRC to remain in the country. Azerbaijan stopped needing the ICRC's humanitarian support long before the war, but there was no way to solve the problem of the organization's unauthorized and opaque activities in Khankendi. After regaining control of all its territories, Azerbaijan has not forgotten about this problem. And solved it.

During the campaign on the Lachin road, the ICRC tried to dictate to Baku which route to send aid to the separatists. We understand that the influence of the Armenian factor and Armenia's allies on the organization could not but do its job. But that's not an excuse. Rather, on the contrary, this powerful and influential global organization has shown that its neutrality and impartiality can depend on circumstances. 

As for persons of Armenian nationality convicted or on trial accused of war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing, terror and aggressive separatism, these persons are not prisoners of war and do not fall under the relevant conventions. They fall under the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan and are or will be held accountable in accordance with its articles and the severity of the crimes they have committed against the Azerbaijani people and the Azerbaijani State.

The Armenian defender of separatists and terrorists should not strain his efforts and knock on the doors of international organizations. No one can deprive Azerbaijan of its sovereign rights and interfere in the affairs of its judicial system. Once again, persons detained after the end of hostilities are not prisoners and are not subject to automatic release in accordance with any conventions.

The issue of "prisoners" is closed. It was not reflected in the peace treaty, which was initialed on August 8 in Washington. Moreover, the Armenian government has not been pedaling this topic for a long time. Only organizations and individuals close to separatist circles and revanchists continue to ring about this.

Taking care of the condition of the defendants and prisoners is an internal matter for the Azerbaijani side, but no one will obstruct the ICRC representatives if they wish to come and visit Vardanyan or anyone else. There won't be any problems with that, and Mrs. Siranush shouldn't worry so much.