Exclusive: Four Months Without Legal Envoy — Why Armenia Still Hasn’t Filled Its Top International Court Post While Critical Cases Against Azerbaijan Continue

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Armenia still has no officially appointed envoy to represent the country in international courts, more than four months after the sudden resignation of Yeghishe Kirakosyan. The vacancy, which has yet to be filled, is sparking growing concern—especially as Armenia continues pursuing high-stakes legal cases against Azerbaijan over war crimes, human rights violations, and ethnic cleansing.

While the government claims the role is temporarily being handled by a deputy and insists a permanent appointment will be made “based on merit,” the long delay has triggered speculation. Some observers believe the government may be preparing to pull back from international legal battles altogether—possibly as part of a broader political deal with Azerbaijan aimed at securing a peace treaty.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has openly suggested that Armenia might drop some or all of its international lawsuits if Azerbaijan does the same. The possibility of abandoning these legal cases, many of which center on serious allegations involving prisoners of war and displaced civilians, has alarmed legal experts and human rights advocates alike.

To understand what this ongoing vacancy could mean for Armenia’s legal position and long-term accountability goals, The Armenian Report turned to Maria Gevorgyan, Esq., a legal researcher and lawyer at the Center for Truth and Justice (CFTJ). In this exclusive interview, Gevorgyan provides expert insight on the legal, moral, and geopolitical risks of scaling back Armenia’s role in the international justice system.

1. Question: From your perspective as a legal expert, how significant is it that Armenia has left its international court representative role vacant for more than four months? Could this vacancy weaken Armenia’s position in its cases before the ECHR or the ICJ?

   
   

Answer: While there has been some public confusion, it is essential to clarify that the position of the Head of the Office of the Representative for International Legal Affairs is not vacant and is currently held by Liparit Drmeyan.

2. Question: How might Azerbaijan interpret Armenia’s delay in appointing a representative — as a sign of weakness, good faith in peace talks, or something else?

   
   

Answer: As for how this may be interpreted, one possible scenario is that any step Armenia takes toward international legal accountability could be portrayed by Azerbaijan as a breach of Armenia’s obligations under the ongoing peace negotiation processes and vice versa. This, in turn, may be used to claim that Armenia is acting in bad faith, potentially undermining diplomatic efforts and being used to justify or legitimize further aggression against Armenia. 

3. Question: What are the risks of not having an officially appointed envoy in active cases involving allegations of war crimes and ethnic cleansing? How do international courts typically respond to countries that appear to delay or scale back their legal participation?

   
   

Answer: This is a critical point, legally and symbolically. While a state may choose not to participate in proceedings, international law is clear: silence is not neutrality.

International law recognises the principle of acquiescence (qui tacet consentire videtur), a state’s voluntary abstention from participation in proceedings can be interpreted as acceptance of the legal consequences of that choice.

Both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have addressed such scenarios. Under Article 53 of the ICJ Statute, the Court can proceed to examine the merits of a case even in the absence of a respondent state and determine whether the claim is well-founded in fact and law. This was notably demonstrated in the Nicaragua v. United States case, where the Court held that non-appearance did not release the respondent state from the binding nature of the judgment.

Similarly, the ECtHR has continued proceedings in post-expulsion cases against Russia, such as Svetova and Others v. Russia, reinforcing the idea that a state’s non-participation does not exempt it from responsibility.

That said, legal participation is not merely procedural, it is principled. Absence risks eroding the equality of arms, a cornerstone of fair adjudication, and may skew the presentation of facts in favour of the opposing party (Azerbaijan, in this case). When only one narrative is heard, the legitimacy of the process itself risks being questioned. And when the stakes involve war crimes and crimes against humanity, the cost of silence is high.

4. Question: Prime Minister Pashinyan has floated the idea of dropping lawsuits against Azerbaijan in exchange for peace. In legal terms, how risky is it to use pending lawsuits as bargaining chips in diplomacy? Armenia has filed serious claims involving alleged war crimes, POW detentions, and ethnic cleansing. If these cases are dropped or left unrepresented, what would that mean for the broader principle of international accountability?

   
   

Answer: First, Armenia has a strong legal position and a high likelihood of success in its international claims, particularly in its case before the ICJ concerning Azerbaijan's violations of international law, including war crimes, the mistreatment of Armenian POWs and the displacement of ethnic Armenians. In November 2024, the ICJ rejected Azerbaijan’s objections in Armenia v. Azerbaijan, allowing the case to proceed in full.

Conversely, the ICJ partially upheld Armenia’s objections, narrowing Azerbaijan’s mirror case. A favourable outcome in Armenia’s case would carry consequences far beyond a legal victory, it would serve as an authoritative affirmation that Armenia acted against a sustained campaign of ethnic discrimination. It would also dismantle the narrative advanced by Azerbaijan that falsely portrays Armenia as the aggressor, restoring truth.

Second, this legal context cannot be examined in a vacuum. Following setbacks in international courts, Azerbaijan has turned to closed, highly politicised domestic trials of former Nagorno-Karabakh de facto authorities, proceedings widely condemned by the UN and European Parliament for lacking judicial independence and due process. These trials are not merely legal actions but part of a calculated “lawfare” campaign. Meanwhile, CFTJ has documented widespread and systematic human rights abuses against Armenian POWs and civilian detainees, including torture and inhumane treatment,  with every returnee reporting such abuse, often ethnically motivated. These are not aberrations, but evidence of a systemic policy of dehumanisation and impunity in Azerbaijan that demands international accountability. There is no indication that Azerbaijan would cease its aggressive narrative-building, legally or politically, even if Armenia were to withdraw its lawsuits.

In principle, human rights must never become bargaining chips in political negotiations. There is no precedent in international practice for a lasting peace that was achieved without accountability mechanisms.  Without this, future violations become more likely, and impunity is reinforced.

Third, under international law, Armenia has a binding obligation to protect the rights of individuals under its jurisdiction, including under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This includes the right to an effective remedy under Article 13. Withdrawal of interstate complaints from the ECtHR would breach this obligation. Furthermore, the prohibition of racial discrimination is a jus cogens norm and an erga omnes obligation, non-derogable and universally binding. In the context of Azerbaijan’s ongoing Armenophobic policies and discriminatory rhetoric, withdrawing the racial discrimination case from the ICJ would signal implicit acceptance of this conduct and violate Armenia’s international obligations.

5. Question: Can victims — such as displaced Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh or the families of POWs — still seek justice if the state itself steps back from legal battles? Would legal organizations or advocacy groups in the U.S. have any role to play if Armenia drops these cases?

   
   

Answer: A state's retreat from legal proceedings does not close the door to justice, but it does shift the burden onto civil society and international mechanisms. Individuals can still seek justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity through various means, including international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC). But without the state’s active involvement, the road is harder. 

This is precisely why civil society must step in. The CFTJ is one such example: non-political, independent, and committed to truth. CFTJ has been systematically collecting testimony, evidence, and documentation from survivors and victims.. Following Armenia’s ratification of the Rome Statute, CFTJ became the first NGO to submit an Article 15 communication to the ICC concerning international crimes committed by Azerbaijan against ethnic Armenians.

State Parties to the Rome Statute have an erga omnes responsibility to refer situations involving international crimes to the Court. While Armenia may face political constraints in doing so, other ICC member states could take this step. Civil society organisations, legal professionals, and advocacy groups, particularly those based in democratic states, have an essential role in urging such referrals and keeping international attention focused. Azerbaijan's actions undertaken against ethnic Armenians amount to international crimes. Failure to respond meaningfully could be interpreted as acquiescence to impunity.

6. Question: From a legal and moral standpoint, do you think Armenia should continue pursuing these cases — even if it complicates peace efforts?

   
   

Answer: From both legal and moral perspectives, Armenia must continue pursuing accountability for atrocities. Beyond its binding obligations under international law lies an unshakable moral imperative. Based on our work at the CFTJ, I can confirm that war crimes and atrocities do not simply fade with time, they leave lasting wounds on survivors, families, and an entire nation. For Armenians who have suffered profound injustice, justice is not optional, it is essential. To abandon these cases would be to ask victims to build a future atop unspoken suffering.

To pursue peace with Azerbaijan while denying justice is to plant seeds in scorched earth. Justice is not the enemy of peace but its guardian.

As Armenia stands at a legal and moral crossroads, this conversation with Maria Gevorgyan makes one thing clear: international justice cannot be paused without consequences. The absence of a formal envoy, combined with talk of dropping lawsuits, sends signals far beyond Yerevan—impacting victims, accountability, and Armenia’s standing on the world stage.

The Armenian Report will continue following developments around Armenia’s legal battles and the appointment of its next representative to international courts. Stay with us for the latest updates.

—

Support independent reporting from the region by subscribing to The Armenian Report. Our team is funded solely by readers like you.