ECtHR - Case of Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, Application no. 40167/06, 16 June 2015
| Country of applicant: | Armenia |
| Court name: | European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber |
| Date of decision: | 16-06-2015 |
| Citation: | ECtHR - Case of Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, Application no. 40167/06, 16 June 2015 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Armed conflict
Description
A dispute involving the use of armed force between two or more parties. International Humanitarian law distinguishes between international and non-international armed conflicts.“An armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a state”. |
|
Freedom of movement (right to)
Description
Generally: “This right is made up of three basic elements: freedom of movement within the territory of a country, right to leave any country and the right to return to his or her own country." In an EU context: "A fundamental right of every citizen of an EU Member State or another European Economic Area (EEA) State or Switzerland to freely move, reside and work within the territory of these States. Notes: 1. This is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2. Whilst initially one of the founding rights in the establishment of the European Union, it has also been extended, via various acquis and agreements (e.g. see Protocol 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU), to other EEA states (i.e. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) plus Switzerland and certain categories of third-country nationals (as outlined in Notes 4. and 5. below). 3. Some Member States have applied transitional arrangements that currently restrict freedom of movement of workers/(citizens) of EU-2 Member States (see http://ec.europa.eu). 4. Whilst third-country nationals have the right to travel freely within the Schengen area, taking up residence in another Member State is covered by specific legal instruments, detailed below. 5. Third-country nationals may take up residence in another Member State depending on their status and subject to the necessary conditions being met. For third-country nationals who are long-term legal residents in an EU Member State, this is covered by Chapter III of Council Directive 2003/109/EC, whilst for third-country nationals with highly qualified employment, this is covered by Article 18 of Council Directive 2009/50/EC.” |
|
Internal armed conflict
Description
“A conflict in which government forces are fighting with armed insurgents, or armed groups are fighting amongst themselves.” |
|
Discrimination
Description
Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms. |
|
Final decision
Description
A decision on whether the third-country national or stateless person be granted refugee status by virtue of the Qualification Directive and which is no longer subject to a remedy within the framework of the Asylum Procedures Directive Chapter V (concerning appeals procedures and the right to an effective remedy) irrespective of whether such remedy has the effect of allowing applicants to remain in the Member States concerned pending its outcome (subject to Annex III which is particular to Spain). |
Headnote:
When due to security reasons an individual cannot be allowed to return to his home where he has lived most of his life, the State has to adopt any other available positive measure to restore his property rights or to provide him with compensation in an appropriate time. Otherwise a violation of both Art. 8 of the Convention and Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 may occur.
Facts:
The applicant’s alleged place of origin, the village of Gulistan, is situated in the Shahumyan region of Azerbaijan.
Gulistan adjoined the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, that at the time of the demise of the USSR was an autonomous province of Azerbaijan, situated within the territory of Azerbaijan.
On 2 September 1991 the Soviet of the Nagorno-Karabakh region announced the establishment of the “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” (NKR), consisting of the territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and the Shahumyan district of Azerbaijan, and claimed independency from Azerbaijan. In December of the same year the Soviet Union was dissolved and Soviet troops began to withdraw from the region. Military control of Nagorno-Karabakh rapidly passed to the Karabakh Armenians.
A conflict arose between Azeris Azerbaijan forces and the Armenian forces of the NKO, which in early 1992 escalated into full-scale war. Against this backdrop, Azerbaijan militants disarmed local Armenian militants in the Shahumyan region of Azerbaijan and expelled the Armenian population of a number of villages, forcing them to leave their homes and flee to Nagorno-Karabakh or Armenia. The expulsions were accompanied by arrests and violence towards the civilian population.
The applicant maintained that, being an ethnic Armenian habitant of Gulistan, he was also forced to leave the village where he had a house and a plot of land, and to move to Armenia.
The applicant maintained that he was never allowed by Azerbaijani forces to return to his village. To justify the impossibility for the applicant to return to Gulistan the Respondent State argued that, although Gulistan is located on the internationally recognised territory of the Republic, the village is on the Line of Contact between the two opponent forces, it is a disputed area, and Azerbaijan has no control over it. The area is therefore too dangerous to live in, and indeed it is deserted.
Decision & reasoning:
Preliminary Issues
1) The Court dismissed the Azerbaijan claim that the applicant had failed to prove the exhaustion of the domestic remedies.
Due to the conflict, the resulting absence of diplomatic relations, and the closing of the borders, the Court firstly acknowledged that there could be considerable practical difficulties for a person from Armenia in bringing legal proceedings in Azerbaijan. Secondly, the Court observed that the Government of Azerbaijan had neither explained how the legislation on the protection of property would apply to the situation of an Armenian refugee who wished to claim restitution or compensation for the loss of property left behind in the context of the conflict; nor they had provided any example of successful similar cases.
2) The Court also dismissed the respondent’s preliminary objection concerning the jurisdiction and responsibility of Azerbaijan.
It was undisputed that Gulistan was situated on the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan. Accordingly, a presumption arose under the Court’s case-law that Azerbaijan had jurisdiction over the village. It was therefore for the respondent Government to show that there was an effective control over the village by another State or a separatist regime, and that consequently Azerbaijan’s responsibility under Article 1 of the Convention was limited according to the Court’s case law. Nevertheless, in the present case it was not possible to establish whether there had been an “NKR” military presence in Gulistan. In this respect their ascertained presence behind the south boundaries of the village was irrelevant.
On the other hand, the Court acknowledged that the presence of difficulties in exercising authority in a certain area, as it was found in Assanidze v. Georgia, can be taken into account when it came to assessing the proportionality of the acts or omissions complained of by the applicant.
Substantive issues
1) The Court held that there had been a continuous violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, by virtue of his impossibility to have access to his property in Gulistan without the Government taking any alternative measures in order to restore his property rights or to provide him with compensation.
Firstly, the Court noted that under the relevant laws of the Azerbaijan SSR in force at the time of the applicant’s displacement, citizens could have personal property of houses, and a right of use of land allocated to them for an indeterminate period and for purposes such as farming or the construction of individual houses. There was therefore no doubt that the applicants’ rights in respect of the houses and land represented a substantive economic interest which constituted “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
As to the more specific disputed issue of the applicant’s possession of a house and land in Gulistan, the Court observed that the applicant had submitted a technical passport relating to his house and land in Gulistan; and that his possessions were further supported by several testimonies.
As to whether a violation of art. 1 of Protocol 1 had occurred, the Court firstly noted that, while the applicant’s forced displacement from Gulistan fell outside the Court’s temporal jurisdiction, it was to be examined whether the respondent Government had breached his rights in the ensuing situation, which had continued after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Azerbaijan.
The Court considered that the situation about which the applicant complains fell under the first part of Art. 1 of Protocol 1, as it concerned a restriction of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The Court observed that by virtue of the aforementioned provision taken in conjunction with Art. 1 of the Convention, each contracting Party not only has to abstain from interfering with the individuals’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Cyprus v. Turkey), but has also to undertake positive actions to protect those rights (Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine). In addition, the Court held that in any case a fare balance has to be struck between the demands of the public interest and the applicant’s fundamental right of property, despite acknowledging a certain level of State’s discretion.
Having regard to the fact that Gulistan was situated in an area of military activity, the Court accepted the respondent Government’s argument that refusing civilians, including the applicant, access to the village was justified by safety considerations imposed by Art. 2 of the Convention. However, as long as access to the property was not possible, the State had a duty to take alternative measures in order to secure property rights, as acknowledged by the relevant international standards issued by the United Nations (Pinheiro Principles) and the Council of Europe (Resolution 1708, 2010). In this respect, it was irrelevant whether Azerbaijan could be held responsible for the displacement itself (Doğan and Others).
In the particular case, having regard to the aforementioned international standards, the Court held that it would have been appropriate to establish a property claims mechanism; easily accessible and with flexible evidentiary standards, to allow the applicant and others in his situation to have their property rights restored and to obtain compensation for the loss of the enjoyment of their rights. Neither having being involved in peace negotiations, nor the circumstances of having to protect thousands of displaced people freed the Azrberajni government from these obligations.
2) The Court found that there had been a continuing breach of Article 8.
Having regard to the evidence submitted by the applicant (a copy of his former Soviet passport and his marriage certificate, and a number of witness statements), the Court found that he had lived in Gulistan for the major part of his life until being forced to leave. He thus had had a “home” there as relevant under Art. 8 (Gillow v. the United Kingdom), and his forced prolonged absence could not be considered to have broken the continuous link with his home (Doğan and Others).
Furthermore, as the applicant had developed most of his social ties in Gulistan, the Court affirmed that his inability to return to the village also affected his “private life” (Pretty v. the United Kingdom). Moreover, the cultural and religious attachment with his late relatives’ graves in Gulistan could fall within the notion of “private and family life”, which could also extend to situations after death (inter alia Jones v. the United Kindgom).
In assessing whether there had been a violation of Art. 8, the Court considered its findings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to be applicable. Thus the Court held that his lack of access to his home and his relatives’ graves in Gulistan without the respondent Government taking any measures in order to address his rights or at least provide compensation had placed a disproportionate burden on him in violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
3) The Court found a continuous breach of Article 13, on account of the respondent Government’s failure to prove that a remedy capable of providing redress to the applicant in respect of his Convention complaints with reasonable prospects of success was available.
4) In accordance with its case law, the Court held that no separate issue had arisen under Article 14 since the complaints in this respect were akin to those already examined by the Court.
Outcome:
The Court found that there had been a continuous violation of Arts.1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Arts. 8 and 13 of the Convention.
The Court held that no separate issue had arisen under Article 14 of the Convention.
Observations/comments:
The judgment was followed by the following dissenting and concurring opinions:
1) Concurring opinion of Judge Ziemele. Despite agreeing with the conclusions of the majority, he expressed his dissent in considering the need to avoid a gap of responsibility as an argument to attribute it to a State. In his opinion avoiding such gaps in Europe is a goal rather than a criteria to attribute responsibility.
Moreover, the Judge would have preferred an assessment also of Armenia’s obligations.
Finally, he disagreed that there can be any room for limited liability, and he would rather talk about limited possibilities for attributing actions or omissions to a State that has jurisdiction but still face external difficulties in protecting an area.
2) Concurring opinion of Judge Ziemele. In his opinion Azerbaijan and Armenia bore concurrent responsibilities for the violations of the Convention, and to impose full responsibility only on Azerbaijan was legally wrong. He noticed that according to the court case-law, post-conflict situations can clearly bring to a shared responsibility among States (see inter alia Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia). In the present case, the applicant’s inability to gain access to his property in this village was triggered by the “NKR”‘s belligerence, and any responsibilities of both States in this respect were therefore concurrent and mutually dependent. Although there is no mechanism under the Convention by which to identify a High Contracting Party accountable ex proprio motu, the judge claimed that procedural impediments should not turn into substantive wrongs.
Furthermore, the Judge maintained that Azerbaijan had to be considered as having only a limited jurisdiction over Gulistan. Indeed an “effective control” over an area is the prerequisite to have jurisdiction over that area, but such a control on an uninhabited territory (such as Gulistan since 1994) is in itself deeply compromised because there is no person over whom to exercise any authority.
3) Partly dissenting opinion of judge Gyulumyan. In his opinion, the Court should have found a violation of Art. 14 by giving due regard to the fact that Azerbaijan forcefully displaced its own citizens from the Shahumyan region on the basis of their ethnicity.
4) Dissenting opinion of Judge Hajiyen. In his opinion, Gullistan was in the contact line between the two fighting armies and there was no reliable evidence proving Azerbaijan’s military presence in the village. He therefore considered Gulistan as a de facto no man’s land where no State exercised effective control. Accordingly, Azerbaijan’s scope of jurisdiction and responsibilities had to be limited.
The judge then recalled that in the Ilaşcu judgment the Court had held that a State hampered by the inability to exercise its authority over part of its territory had to take measures to re-establish its sovereignty over the disputed territory. In the present case, he highlighted that Azerbaijan was fulfilling this general obligation.
As to special duties relating to the individual, in Ilaşcu, Ivantoc and Catan, the Court had affirmed that the State has the positive obligation to protect people’s rights by means of diplomacy, and practical and judicial measures. In the case under analysis, Azerbaijan had not enacted any law depriving the applicant or any other person who had left their property of their property rights. On the contrary, the right of all IDPs and refugees has always been a subject of diplomatic negotiations. Therefore, Azerbaijan had discharged its duties under the Convention.
5) Dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque
The judge argued that the applicant had available remedies before the courts in Azerbaijan, noting that the respondent government had produced evidence of the actual availability of such remedies for Armenians living in Azerbaijan; that in Cyprus v. Turkey the Court had given credit to the same kind of evidence; and that according to the Court’s case-law the existence of doubts as to the efficacy of domestic remedies does not absolve the applicant from the obligation to, at least, try to use them.
The judge further maintained that the applicant had not produced convincing evidence as to his ownership of the house and land, not destruction of the house, and existence of family graves in Gulistan. The judge affirmed that the majority had allowed an inadmissible inversion of the burden of proof to the detriment of the respondent party and had gone far beyond the reasonable level of flexibility foreseen by the Pinheiro Principles in favour of refugees and displaced people.
Moreover, the Judge found that neither of the two parties have effective control over Gulistan and therefore jurisdiction under Art. 1. In this respect, the judge maintained that the majority had accepted the full responsibility of the respondent State simply to fill a void of responsibility.
The judge further expressed dissent on how the majority had addressed the substantial issues at stake.
He argued that the majority had not properly addressed the issue of whether the operation of displacing the Armenian Population living in the Shahumyan region conducted in 1991 by Azerbaijan SSR, and the restrictions imposed on the applicant’s return to Gulistan could be in any way justified under international law (in particular humanitarian international law and the rules set up in the “Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act”). Such an analysis was relevant under Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 as this refers to the general principle under international law as a ground for restricting the right to property.
The judge also argued that the imposition of positive obligations upon the respondent State alternative to granting the applicant access to his house (impossible for reason of security), was not based on solid legal grounds. Such a faulty conclusion had been reached by the majority by an inappropriate reference to Doğan and Others, and by not taking into due account that Armenian refugees, like the applicant, could already benefit from a 1991 Order legalising property swaps between individuals.
For an analysis of the case see: The Nagorno-Karabakh Cases, Marko Milanovic
On the same day as the issuance of this case the Court gave its ruling in Chiragov and Others v Armenia (no. 13216/05) which principally assessed whether Armenia exercised effective overall control, and thus jurisdiction, over Nagorno-Karabakh. The Court found the same Convention articles in Sargsyan to have been violated by Armenia in Chiragov.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| ECtHR - Shamayev v Georgia (April 2005) (Application no. 36378/02) |
| ECtHR - Loizidou v Turkey (Application no. 40/1993 and 435/514) |
| ECtHR - Moldova v Romania (Application no. 41138/98 and 64320/01) |
| ECtHR - Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia (Application no. 25965/04) |
| ECtHR - Z v United Kingdom (Application no. 29392/95) |
| ECtHR - Al-Skeini and Others v United Kingdom [GC], Application No. 55721/07 |
| ECtHR - Assanidze v Georgia [GC], Application No. 71503/01 |
| ECtHR - Bankovic and Others v Belgium and 16 other Contracting States [GC], Application No. 52207/99 |
| ECtHR - Ilascu and Others v Moldova and Russia [GC], Application No. 48787/99 |
| ECtHR - M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [GC], Application No. 30696/09 |
| ECtHR - Akdivar v Turkey, Application No. 21893/93 |
| ECtHR - Natchova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], Application Nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98 |
| ECtHR - Sardinas Albo v Italy, Application No. 56271/00 |
| Varnava and others v. Turkey [GC], nos16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90 |
| ECtHR- Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], (Application nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06) |
| Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09 |
| ECtHR - Öneryıldız v. Turkey (No. 48939/99) |
| ECtHR - Valentin Campeanu v. Romania (no. 47848/08) |
| ECtHR - Poluhas Dodsbo v. Sweden (no. 61564/00) |
| ECtHR - Brusco v. Italy (no. 69789/01) |
| ECtHR - Stephens v. Cyprus, Turkey and the United Nations, no. 45267/06, 11 December 2008 |
| ECtHR - Azemi v. Serbia, no.11209/09, 5 November 2013 |
| ECtHR - Içyer v. Turkey (no. 18888/02) |
| ECtHR - Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, no. 46347/99, 14 March 2005 |
| ECtHR - Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, no. 13216/05, 14 December 2011 |
| ECtHR - Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, no. 40167/06, 14 December 2011 |
| ECtHR - Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04) |
| ECtHR- Kazali and Hakan Kazali v. Cyprus, no. 49247/08, 6 March 2012 |
| ECtHR - Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 38450/05) |
| ECtHR - Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011 |
| ECtHR - Hadri-Vionnet v. Switzerland (no. 55525/00) |
| ECtHR - Solomonides v. Turkey, no. 16161/90, 20 January 2009 |
| ECtHR - Saveriades v. Turkey, no. 16160/90, 22 September 2009 |
| ECtHR - Doğan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02) |
| ECtHR - Elli Poluhas Dödsbo v. Sweden (no. 61564/00) |
| ECtHR - Kerimova and Others v. Russia, nos. 17170/04, 20792/04, 22448/04, 23360/04, 5681/05 and 5684/05, 3 May 2011 |
| Orphanides v. Turkey, no. 36705/97, 20 January 2009 |
| ECtHR - Lordos and Others v. Turkey (no. 15973/90) |
| ECtHR - Damayev v. Russia, no. 36150/04, 29 May 2012 |
| ECtHR - Prokopovich v. Russia (no. 58255/00) |
| ECtHR - Elsanova v. Russia, no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005 |
| Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/00, 3 October 2008; |
| ECtHR - Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine (no. 48553/99) |
| ECtHR - Gillow v. the United Kingdom, No. 9063/80, 24 November 1986 |
| ICJ - Case Concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v Australia), 26 June 1992 |
Other sources:
United Nations materials
- The “Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons”, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 28 June 2005, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/17, Annex
- General Assembly Resolution 2621 (XXV) of 12 October 1970 (A/RES/2621 (XXV)
- Resolutions: General Assembly Resolution 3103 of 12 December 1973 (A/RES/3103 (XXVIII)), Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), of 5 April 1991 (S/RES/688 [1991]), later confirmed by many others, such as Resolutions 733 (1992) of 23 January 1992 (S/RES/733 [1992]), and 794 (1992) of 3 December 1992 (S/RES/794 [1992]), on the situation in Somalia, and 1199 (1998), of 23 September 1998 (S/RES/1199 [1998]), Resolutions 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990 (S/RES/0678 [(1990]), 770 (1992) of 13 August 1992 (S/RES/770 [1992]), 794 (1992) of 3 December 1992 (S/RES/794 [1992]), 940 (1994) of 31 July 1994 (S/RES/940 [1994]), and 1529 (2004) of 29 February 2004 (S/RES/1529 [2004]), 45/100 of 14 December 1990 (A/RES/45/100), 46/182 of 19 December 1991 (A/RES/46/182), 1265 (1999), of 17 September 1999 (S/RES/1265 (1999)) and 1296 (2000) of 19 April 2000 (S/RES/1296 (2000)), resolution (S/RES/1706 [2006]), Resolution 2014, of 21 October 2011, on the situation of Yemen (S/RES/2014 [2011]), Resolution 1970, of 26 February 2011 (S/RES/1970 (2011)), Resolution 1973, of 17 March 2011 (S/RES/1973 [2011]), Resolution 2016, of 27 October 2011 (S/RES/2016 [2011]), and Resolution 2040, of 12 March 2012 (S/RES/2040 (2012]) on the situation in Libya, Resolution 1975, of 30 March 2011 (S/RES/1975 [2011]), Resolution 1894 (2009) of 11 November 2009 (S/RES/1894 [2009]), Council Resolution 307 (1971), of 21 December 1971 (S/RES/307 (1971)),General Assembly Resolution 2793 (XXVI), of 7 December 1971 (A/RES/2793 (XXVI)), Security Council Resolution 788 (1992), of 19 November 1992 (S/RES/788 (1992)), Resolution 1497, of 1 August 2003 (S/RES/1497 (2003)), and Resolution 1132 (1997), of 8 October 1997 (S/Res/1132/1997 (1997)), Resolution 1315, of 14 August 2000 (S/RES/1315 (2000)), Security Council Resolution 1545 (2004) (S/RES/1545 (2004), 1234, of 9 April 1999 (S/RES/1234 (1999)
- Report of the Secretary-General, A/67/929-S/2013/399, 9 July 2013; “Fulfilling Our Collective Responsibility: International Assistance and the Responsibility to Protect”: Report of the Secretary-General, A/68/947-S/2014/449, 11 July 2014.
- Secretary General, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility”, 2 December 2004, A/59/565, §§ 201-208
Council of Europe materials
- “Solving property issues of refugees and displaced persons”, Parliamentary Assembly (PA) Resolution 1708 (2010)
- Refugees and displaced persons in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia”, PA Resolution 1497 (2006)
- Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on internally displaced persons, Rec(2006)6.
-The European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) of the Council of Europe in all three of its reports on Azerbaijan (adopted on 28 June 2002, 15 December 2006 and 23 March 2011 respectively),
- Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (Opinion on Azerbaijan, ACFC/INF/OP/I (2004)001 (22 May 2003);
- Second Opinion on Azerbaijan, ACFC/OP/II (2007)007 (9 November 2007)).
- Committee of Ministers Resolutions Res (2000)13 and (2000)14).
- Parliamentary Assembly Opinions 221 (2000)
Other international Provisions
- Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907
-1999 ECOWAS Protocol establishing the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security
-2000 Protocol Relating to the Establishment of a Mutual Security Pact in Central Africa
-2001 SADC Protocol on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation
- African Union Act and Articles 4 (j) and 7 § 1 (f) of the 2002 Protocol relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union
- Article 49 of Convention [No. IV] relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 (“the Fourth Geneva Convention”)
- 1977 Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions
- ECtHR, Rule of the Court 24, 42, 59, 72, 52 § 1
Other Documents or Scholarschip
- Report of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs’ Field Assessment Mission to the Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan Surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh
- 2007 Madrid Basic Principles (OSCE Minsk Group)
- ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 20-25.
- High-resolution satellite imagery assessment of Gulistan, Azerbaijan, 2002-2012
-J.-M. Henckaerts, and L. Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, (Geneva/Cambridge: ICRC/Cambridge University Press, 2005).
-Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996
-African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Resolution 117 (XXXXII), of 28 November 2007, “Strengthening the Responsibility to Protect in Africa”,
-ICRC Study on Rules of customary international humanitarian law, and Principle 6 of the Guiding principles on internal displacement (E/CN.4/1/1998/53/Add.2), of 11 February 1998.
- De jure belli ac pacis, Grotius