United Nations A/63/781–S/2009/156
General Assembly
Security Council
Distr.: General
24 March 2009
Original: English
09-27938 (E) 060409
*0927938*
General Assembly
Sixty-third session
Agenda items 13 and 18
Protracted conflicts in the GUAM area and
their implications for international peace,
security and development
The situation in the occupied territories
of Azerbaijan
Security Council
Sixty-fourth year

Letter dated 23 March 2009 from the Permanent Representative of
Armenia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General

I would like to submit herewith for your attention the text of the memorandum
entitled “Nagorny Karabakh: peaceful negotiations and Azerbaijan’s militaristic
policy” (see annex).
I would highly appreciate if you could circulate the text of the memorandum as
a document of the General Assembly, under agenda item 13 and 18, and of the
Security Council.
(Signed) Armen Martirosyan
Ambassador
Permanent Representative

A/63/781
S/2009/156
2 09-27938
Annex to the letter dated 23 March 2009 from the Permanent
Representative of Armenia to the United Nations addressed to
the Secretary-General

Nagorny Karabakh: peace negotiations and Azerbaijan’s
militaristic policy

March 2009
Foreword
Taking into consideration the fact that the reports transmitted by the Republic
of Azerbaijan to the United Nations General Assembly on 22 and 26 December
2008, namely “Report on the legal consequences of armed aggression by the
Republic of Armenia against the Republic of Azerbaijan” and “Report on the
fundamental norm of the territorial integrity of States and the right to selfdetermination
in the light of Armenia’s revisionist claims”, as well as the “Reports
on the international legal responsibilities of Armenia as the belligerent occupier of
Azerbaijani territory” and “Support by States Members of the United Nations and
international organizations to Azerbaijan’s position on the conflict in and around the
Nagorny Karabakh region of Azerbaijan” circulated by Azerbaijan on 23 January
and 17 February 2009, misinterpret the essence of the Nagorny Karabakh problem
and hinder the process of peaceful settlement, the Permanent Mission of the
Republic of Armenia to the United Nations distributes the following report on
Nagorny Karabakh.
Militaristic policy pursued by Azerbaijan on the Nagorny Karabakh conflict
resolution has recently severely intensified and is posing a serious threat to the
regional peace and security. This, in turn, significantly hinders the process of the
peaceful settlement of the conflict within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group.
In the South Caucasus, any careless word, any irresponsible step can trigger
unpredictable consequences, while the military build-up in Azerbaijan and bellicose
statements made at the highest level add tension to the overall environment.
Contrary to the spirit of the negotiations within the OSCE Minsk Group, Azerbaijan
has, for years, been developing and carrying out a large-scale campaign of anti-
Armenian propaganda, instilling racial hatred and intolerance against the
Armenians.
Within a short period of time Azerbaijan has increased its military budget
tenfold, blatantly violating the norms of arms limitation stipulated by the
international treaties, particularly exceeding the maximum permissible limits of the
armaments specified under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
Azerbaijan’s hostile statements and threats, as well as frequent violations of the
existing ceasefire, constitute elements of aggression.
On the international arena, Azerbaijan consistently misrepresents the essence
of the Nagorny Karabakh problem, trying to conceal the ethnic cleansings and its
policy of violence conducted against the people of Nagorny Karabakh in 1988-1991.
Consequently, these actions developed into open aggression and large-scale
hostilities against the self-determined people of the Republic of Nagorny Karabakh,
which also involved mercenaries closely linked to terrorist organizations, and
ultimately claimed the lives of tens of thousands of civilians.
Wounds of the previous war, unleashed by Azerbaijan, are still raw, but
Azerbaijan is already pursuing a policy aimed at provoking a new one. In the United
Nations General Assembly and Security Council the Azerbaijani side has circulated
“reports” and draft resolutions on the Nagorny Karabakh problem, which not only
have a negative impact on the process of negotiations, but also contain Azerbaijan’s
intent to legitimize possible military aggression against Nagorny Karabakh and the
Republic of Armenia.
The Republic of Armenia believes that there is a serious basis for the
settlement of the Nagorny Karabakh problem, if the provisions contained in the
Declaration signed by the Presidents of the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of
Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation on 2 November 2008, in Moscow, and also in
the Declaration of the Foreign Ministers of the Co-Chair countries of the OSCE
Minsk Group issued in Helsinki on 4 December 2008, and in the Declaration
adopted by the Foreign Ministers of all 56 OSCE member States on 5 December
2008, are implemented. According to these documents, any military option must be
ruled out as a means to solve the Nagorny Karabakh conflict, the parties must
commit themselves to a political, peaceful settlement of the problem through
negotiations, based on the “Madrid Recommendations” of the Co-Chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group.
Armenia is convinced that the commitment of the parties to refrain from steps
that could hamper the dialogue and the peace process can create an opportunity for
progress in the peaceful settlement of the Nagorny Karabakh problem.

I. Current phase of peace negotiations and Azerbaijan’s destructive
conduct

1. The current phase of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict started in 1988, when, in
response to a just demand for self-determination by the population of Nagorny
Karabakh, the authorities of the Azerbaijani SSR perpetrated massacres and ethnic
cleansing of Armenians all over the country. In 1991, as a result of the collapse of
the USSR, and in compliance with the USSR legislation and norms of international
law, two States were established on the territory of the Azerbaijani SSR — the
Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Nagorny Karabakh. However,
Azerbaijan launched large-scale hostilities against the Republic of Nagorny
Karabakh, also involving mercenaries closely linked to terrorist organizations,
which claimed the lives of tens of thousands of civilians and caused substantial
material losses.
2. At the start of the war, the Republic of Azerbaijan occupied the major part of
the Republic of Nagorny Karabakh, nearly reaching its capital Stepanakert. To
ensure the security of its people, the armed forces of the Republic of Nagorny
Karabakh were forced to carry the military actions into the territory of the adversary
and took control of the adjacent regions, which served as a security buffer,
preventing further bombardment of the settlements in Nagorny Karabakh and
annihilation of its population. However, the armed forces of the Republic of
Nagorny Karabakh were not able to liberate all the territories occupied by
Azerbaijan, including the entire region of Shahumian, and the eastern parts of the
Martuni and Martakert regions.
3. In May 1994, at the meeting in Bishkek the Speakers of the Parliaments of
Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh and Armenia signed the final Protocol of the CIS
Inter-Parliamentary Summit on the Nagorny Karabakh conflict, which laid the
grounds for the subsequent ceasefire agreement. The latter came into force on
12 May and, despite some violations, has been respected to date.
4. In 1992-1994, the negotiations on the peaceful settlement of the Nagorny
Karabakh problem were held within the framework of the CSCE. Starting from 1994
the negotiations continued under the mediation of the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk
Group. The Budapest summit of CSCE of December 1994 instructed the Minsk
Group to conduct negotiations with all the parties to the conflict: Azerbaijan,
Nagorny Karabakh and Armenia. The meetings between the Armenian and
Azerbaijani Presidents and Foreign Ministers started in the OSCE framework since
1999. During the past 15 years the Co-Chairs have submitted numerous
recommendations to the parties.
5. At the beginning of 2001, in Paris, as a result of two-phase meetings the
Presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and France reached an agreement in principle on
the settlement of the conflict, which was documented in Key West (United States).
However, later, Azerbaijan refused to follow its commitments.
6. In 2004, a new “Prague Process” was launched between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. Currently, the negotiations are based on the “Madrid
Recommendations” submitted by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs to the
Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan and deposited with the
OSCE Secretary General.
7. The Republic of Armenia values the mediation efforts of the OSCE Minsk
Group Co-Chairs as a functional format of negotiations that has a sufficient
potential to find ways for the settlement of the conflict. Meanwhile, as a result of a
propaganda of the authorities of Azerbaijan against the Minsk Group mediation,
82 per cent of the population of Azerbaijan oppose the mediation efforts of the
OSCE Minsk Group.
8. In parallel to the OSCE peace process, for years the Republic of Azerbaijan
has been making attempts to transfer the issue of the settlement of the Nagorny
Karabakh problem to other international frameworks, particularly to the United
Nations, where many parties are somewhat less familiar with the nature and origins
of the problem. Those efforts by Azerbaijan are solely aimed at dragging the
peaceful resolution of the issue. On 14 March 2008, resolution 62/243 on the
situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, submitted by the Republic of
Azerbaijan, was adopted by the General Assembly by only 39 votes out of
192 members of the United Nations. Around four fifths of the United Nations
Members did not support the resolution. The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair
countries voted against, noting in their joint statement that the resolution contains
some principles selectively (the principle of territorial integrity) at the expense of
other principles (the right to self-determination, etc). The adoption of this resolution
not only hindered the negotiation process of Nagorny Karabakh conflict, but also
had destructive consequences, launching a new wave of the years-old militaristic
policy of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan tried to ignore the existing format of the
negotiations and the “Madrid Recommendations” and to impose the General
Assembly resolution as a basis for negotiation on the settlement of the Nagorny
Karabakh conflict.
9. On 6 June 2008, at their meeting in St. Petersburg, the Presidents of the
Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan reached a final agreement to
accept the “Madrid Recommendations” as a basis for negotiations. The Presidents
instructed their Ministers for Foreign Affairs to proceed with the negotiations on the
basis of “Madrid Recommendations” to converge the positions of the parties on
pending issues. Nevertheless, after the St. Petersburg meeting and up until the
presidential elections in Azerbaijan in October 2008, Azerbaijan on the highest level
continued its destructive policy questioning the “Madrid Recommendations”.
10. The negotiation process was renewed on 2 November 2008 through the
mediation and initiative of the Russian President Medvedev, in his capacity as the
President of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair country. The result of the Moscow
negotiations was the signing by the Presidents of the Republic of Armenia, the
Republic of Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation of the “Declaration on Nagorny
Karabakh conflict”. This initiative was approved and supported by the OSCE Minsk
Group Co-Chairs. The main provisions of the Declaration are: (a) the political and
peaceful settlement of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict; (b) the settlement of the
Nagorny Karabakh conflict on the basis of the norms and principles of international
law; (c) the reconfirmation of the continuity of mediatory efforts of OSCE Minsk
Group Co-Chairs; (d) the continuation of the negotiations on the basis of the
“Madrid Recommendations”; (e). commitment to supplement the settlement by
international guarantees; and (f) creation of conditions for the implementation of
confidence-building measures. Signing of the Declaration was a positive step
towards the enhancement of the negotiation process. However, Azerbaijan has not
only continued its destructive policy, but also tried to misrepresent and misinterpret
the provisions of the Declaration, particularly stating that (a) the settlement of the
problem does not exclude the use of force by Azerbaijan; and (b) the principle of
territorial integrity is the only applicable principle, etc.
11. On 4 December 2008 in Helsinki, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan met with the OSCE Minsk
Group Co-Chairs on the margins of the OSCE Ministerial Council. The Ministers
for Foreign Affairs of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries in their statement
reiterated their firm position that there can be no military solution to the conflict and
called on the parties to recommit to a peaceful resolution. The Ministers also
stressed the value of the Moscow Declaration, the continuation of the negotiations
with the mediation of the Co-Chairs on the basis of the “Madrid
Recommendations”. The Ministers also called on the parties to finalize the Basic
Principles and begin drafting a comprehensive peace agreement.
12. On 5 December 2008, in Helsinki, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of
56 OSCE member States adopted a Declaration welcoming a peaceful and political
settlement of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict, and efforts to develop confidencebuilding
measures and to consolidate the ceasefire. The Ministers strongly
encouraged the parties to intensify efforts in the negotiation process, stressed the
significance of the Moscow Declaration, the positive momentum established after
the St. Petersburg and Moscow meetings of the Presidents of the Republic of
Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, the continuation of the negotiations with
the mediation of the Co-Chairs on the basis of the “Madrid Recommendations”. The
parties were also encouraged to immediately pull out snipers from the conflict area,
to enhance efforts to finalize the Basic Principles and to begin drafting a
comprehensive peace agreement.
13. The Armenian side welcomed these statements and believes that through the
commitment to the provisions of these statements the parties can achieve progress in
the negotiation process. However, the Azerbaijani side once again ignored the
appeals of the international community.
14. Presidents Serzh Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev assessed their Zurich meeting of
29 January 2009 as constructive and instructed the two Ministers for Foreign Affairs
to continue the negotiations with the mediation of the Co-Chairs on the basis of the
“Madrid Recommendations”.
15. However, Azerbaijan has continued its destructive conduct by circulating
reports at the General Assembly on 22 and 26 December 2008, namely “Report on
the legal consequences of armed aggression by the Republic of Armenia against the
Republic of Azerbaijan” and “Report on the fundamental norm of the territorial
integrity of States and the right to self-determination in the light of Armenia’s
revisionist claims”, which not only hinder the process of the peaceful settlement,
misinterpret the essence of the Nagorny Karabakh problem, but also attempt to
legitimize Azerbaijan’s intent of possible military aggression against Nagorny
Karabakh and the Republic of Armenia. Azerbaijan’s hostile statements and threats,
as well as frequent violations of the existing ceasefire constitute elements of
aggression.
16. In response to Azerbaijan’s destructive conduct in the peace negotiations, the
Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group on 19 February 2009 issued a joint statement,
in which they stressed that, despite the two reports circulated at the request of the
Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations on 22 and
26 December 2008, there is no military solution to the Nagorny Karabakh conflict.
They expressed hope that the above-mentioned reports would have no bearing on
the negotiations within the Minsk Group in pursuit of a peaceful and political
settlement of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict, to which both Presidents committed
themselves in their Moscow Declaration of 2 November 2008.
17. Despite the statement of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, Azerbaijan
continues its efforts to misinterpret the Nagorny Karabakh problem and, on
23 January and 17 February 2009, circulated new reports at the United Nations
“Report on the international legal responsibilities of Armenia as the belligerent
occupier of Azerbaijani territory” and “Support by States Members of the United
Nations and international organizations to Azerbaijan’s position on the conflict in
and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of Azerbaijan”.
18. Neglecting the requirements of the OSCE Helsinki Ministerial Declaration,
Azerbaijan made a statement on 5 March 2009 at the 752nd meeting of the OSCE
Permanent Council, pointing at the uselessness of the pull-out of the snipers from
the Nagorny Karabakh conflict area.
19. Azerbaijan is intensifying its years-old militaristic policy, increasing its
military budget tenfold and violating the arms limitation norms stipulated by the
international treaties. Azerbaijan’s war rhetoric, at the highest level, adds tension to
the overall environment. According to the official results of a public opinion poll,
30 per cent of the population of Azerbaijan favours the military solution of the
Nagorny Karabakh problem.
20. Armenia adheres to the peaceful settlement of the conflict and values the
establishment of the environment of confidence necessary to continue the
negotiations in a constructive way. The parties should refrain from any steps which
may create additional tension and obstacles on the way to the peaceful settlement.

II. Legal and historical aspects of the Nagorny Karabakh problem

A. Development of the dispute (1918-1920)

21. The dispute over Nagorny Karabakh dates back to the period of the collapse of
the Russian Empire after the October 1917 Revolution and the subsequent creation
of three States in the South Caucasus: the Republic of Armenia, the Democratic
Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Georgia. Following the collapse of the
Empire, Nagorny Karabakh (with 95 per cent of Armenian population) refused to
subject itself to the authority of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. The
Nagorny Karabakh Armenians convened their First Assembly, which proclaimed
Karabakh an autonomous entity and elected a National Council and a government.
22. The newly proclaimed Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan resorted to military
means to suppress the peaceful resolve of the people of Nagorny Karabakh for selfdetermination.
Between May 1918 and April 1920, Azerbaijani troops, backed by
Turkish forces, continued the aggression against and massacres of the Armenian
population of Nagorny Karabakh (in March 1920, around 40,000 Armenians were
massacred or deported from the town of Shushi). However, that could not force the
people of Nagorny Karabakh to submit to the Azerbaijani rule. Meanwhile, the
newly independent Republic of Armenia had to mobilize to defend itself against the
Turkish invasion, and was unable to protect Nagorny Karabakh or take diplomatic
steps towards the resolution of the Nagorny Karabakh problem.
23. From 1918 to 1920, Nagorny Karabakh possessed all necessary attributes of
statehood, including army and legitimate authorities. In August 1919, the National
Council of Karabakh and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan
concluded a Provisional Agreement on Nagorny Karabakh to avoid military conflict.
Both sides agreed that the issue must be considered at the Paris Peace Conference.
Thus, entering into agreement with the Karabakh National Council, Azerbaijan
confirmed the status of Nagorny Karabakh as an independent legal entity. The
Provisional Agreement was violated by the Azerbaijani side after the sovietization
of Azerbaijan.
24. It was not until April 1920 that the Republic of Armenia could come to the
rescue of the devastated population of Karabakh. On 23 April 1920, the Ninth
Assembly of the Karabakh Armenians declared Nagorny Karabakh as an inalienable
part of the Republic of Armenia.
25. In 1920, Nagorny Karabakh was recognized by Soviet Russia as a disputed
territory between Soviet Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia. The Agreement
signed on 10 August 1920 between Soviet Russia and the Republic of Armenia
stated that the regions of Karabakh, Zangezour and Nakhichevan should be occupied
by Soviet troops, but that would not predetermine the final possession of these
regions. The solution of the issue was subject to determination by a Pact to be
signed between Armenia and Soviet Russia.

B. International response to the illegal claims of Azerbaijan

26. The international community, namely the League of Nations, recognized the
disputed status of Nagorny Karabakh. The League of Nations rejected Azerbaijan’s
accession application on the grounds that it was unable to determine the borders of
the state and its sovereignty over a territory. One of the disputable issues was the
status of Nagorny Karabakh, within larger borders than its present ones.1
(Memorandum of the Secretary General, the League of Nations, November 1920,
reference no. 20/48/108). The League of Nations revisited the issue of Nagorny
Karabakh in 1919-1920, at the Paris Peace Conference, when it committed itself to
finding a solution to the problem, but the establishment of Soviet rule in the region
left the issue out of international forums.

C. Nagorny Karabakh under Soviet rule (1921-1988)

Annexation of Nagorny Karabakh to Azerbaijan
27. On 30 November 1920, the Soviet Government of Azerbaijan adopted a
Declaration on recognition of Nagorny Karabakh as an integral part of Soviet
Armenia as a welcome act towards the victory of Soviet forces in the country.
28. On 21 June 1921, the Government of Soviet Armenia, based on Azerbaijan’s
Declaration and the agreement with the Azerbaijani Government, issued a Decree
recognizing Nagorny Karabakh as an integral part of Soviet Armenia.
29. These documents were registered in the League of Nations resolution of
18 December 1920, and in the 1920/21 annual report of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Russia, respectively.
30. Neglecting the reality, on 5 July the Caucasian Bureau of the Communist
Party, acting under Joseph Stalin’s personal pressure, revised its own decision of the
previous day and resolved to subject Karabakh to Azerbaijani rule and to create an
autonomous province (oblast) of Nagorny Karabakh, within the territory of Soviet
Azerbaijan. This decision cannot serve as a legal basis for the determination of the
status and the borders of the Nagorny Karabakh: it was adopted by a third-country
party, i.e. the Russian Bolshevik Party, with no legal power or jurisdiction; at the
time of the decision, both Armenia and Azerbaijan were independent, albeit Soviet,
States; the governments of the two States had not reached an agreement on status
and borders; the decision was not based on a legal or historic reasoning, it was
dictated by the will of an individual.
31. In December 1922, Soviet Armenia and Soviet Azerbaijan acceded to the
Soviet Union and the Autonomous region of Nagorny Karabakh was established
within the Azerbaijani SSR, thus freezing the solution of the Karabakh problem.
This region comprised only parts of Nagorny Karabakh proper.
Human rights violations in Nagorny Karabakh under Soviet rule
32. Throughout its rule over Nagorny Karabakh, the authorities of the Azerbaijani
SSR systematically violated the rights and freedoms of the Armenians of Karabakh.
The Azerbaijani authorities deliberately hampered the social and economic
development of Karabakh, turning it into a source of raw materials.2 The
Azerbaijani SSR pursued a policy of the eviction of the Armenian population from
Karabakh, and destruction and appropriation of Armenian cultural and historic
monuments.
33. Azerbaijan’s discrimination towards Nagorny Karabakh had its impact on the
welfare of its Armenian population and became a major migration factor. As a
result, the Armenian population declined: while in 1923 Armenians constituted
94.4 per cent of the entire population of Nagorny Karabakh, in 1989, their numbers
dropped down to 76.9 per cent. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani population of Nagorny
Karabakh increased several times as its growth was predominantly sustained by the
influx from Azerbaijan: in 1923 Azerbaijanis constituted 3 per cent of the population
of the area, while, by 1989, their number increased up to 21,5 per cent.
Appeals to revise the annexation of Nagorny Karabakh
34. The population and the authorities of the Autonomous Region of Nagorny
Karabakh and the authorities of the Armenian SSR made numerous appeals to the
Soviet authorities to revise the decision of the transfer of Nagorny Karabakh to the
Azerbaijani SSR. All these demands were either ignored or rejected and their
initiators severely persecuted. Some of those requests were: the 1945 appeal of the
Communist party and the Government of the Armenian SSR to the Soviet
Government and the Union Communist Party; in 1963 and in 1965, the Nagorny
Karabakh population sent, respectively, 2,500 and 45,000 letters to the Soviet
authorities; during the discussion of the draft Soviet Constitution in 1977,
individuals and enterprises of the Autonomous Region of Nagorny Karabakh
proposed numerous amendments.

D. Nagorny Karabakh in 1988-1991

35. The launch of Perestroika raised the hopes of Nagorny Karabakh Armenians
for a fair and democratic solution of their issue. At the end of 1987, thousands of
Karabakh Armenians initiated peaceful marches and demonstrations and the
authorities of the Autonomous Region of Nagorny Karabakh submitted appeals and
petitions to the Communist party of the USSR and State leadership. More than
80,000 people signed the public petition requesting reunification with the Armenian
SSR.
36. On 20 February 1988, the special session of the People’s Delegates of Nagorny
Karabakh adopted a decision to “appeal to the Supreme Councils of the Azerbaijani
and Armenian Soviet Socialist Republics to transfer Nagorny Karabakh from the
Azerbaijani SSR to the Armenian SSR”. This decision was preceded by similar ones
from the local and district Councils.
37. The Soviet leadership attempted to shift the Nagorny Karabakh problem from
the political into the social and economic domain. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani
authorities, used the ambivalent stance of the Soviet leadership to launch a ferocious
media campaign in order to shift the whole problem into the inter-ethnic domain and
in 1988-1990, instead of finding a peaceful solution to the issue, provoked violence,
massacres and forced deportations (Sumgait massacres of February 1988; the
Armenian pogroms throughout Azerbaijan, particularly in Baku, Kirovabad,
Shemakh, Shamkhor, Mingechaur, in the Nakhichevan ASSR in November-
December 1988; the major massacre of Baku in January 1990; the forced
deportation of 24 Armenian villages in 1990 as a result of the “Operation Ring” —
2 in the Khanlar region of Azerbaijan, 3 in the Shahumian district, 15 in the Hadrout
region and 4 in the Shushi region; and the Maragha massacre of April 1992.
38. In April-May 1991, the joint efforts of the Soviet and Azerbaijani authorities to
deport the Armenian population of the Autonomous Region of Nagorny Karabakh
and the surrounding regions culminated in the operation Koltso (Ring) carried out
by the Soviet military structures, which stimulated the creation of the Karabakh selfdefence
army to resist the Azerbaijani offensive. In addition to the military
offensive, the Azerbaijani SSR resorted to economic coercive measures and cut all
commodity supplies, which were mainly delivered to the Armenian SSR and the
Autonomous Region of Nagorny Karabakh through the Azerbaijani SSR. The result
was the total isolation of Karabakh.
Creation of the Republic of Nagorny Karabakh
39. On 29 August 1991, the Azerbaijani SSR declared the restoration of the
independence of the “Azerbaijani Democratic Republic of 1918-1921”. On
23 November 1991, the Republic of Azerbaijan, unilaterally and without the consent
of the population of Nagorny Karabakh, adopted a law on “Abolition of the Nagorny
Karabakh Autonomous oblast”, which also envisaged the renaming of certain
Armenian cities.
40. In 1991, Nagorny Karabakh initiated the process of gaining independence in
compliance with the USSR domestic legislation. Based on the USSR Constitution
and the Soviet Law on “The procedures of the resolution of problems on the
secession of a union republic from the USSR” of 3 April 1990, which stipulated that
in case of a secession of a Soviet republic from the Union, people of autonomous
republics, autonomous entities and national groups which densely populate
particular areas are entitled to decide on their own whether to stay within the USSR
or the seceding Union Republic, on 2 September 1991 the joint session of Nagorny
Karabakh regional and Shahumian District Councils of People’s Delegates adopted a
declaration proclaiming creation of the Nagorny Karabakh Republic.
41. On 10 December 1991, Nagorny Karabakh held a referendum monitored by
international observers and media representatives,3 which confirmed Karabakh’s
independence: 108,736 of the registered 132,328 voters (82.2 per cent) cast ballots,
42. On 6 January 1992, the newly elected Parliament of Nagorny Karabakh, based
on the right of its people’s for self-determination and the will of the people
expressed through the referendum, adopted the “Declaration of Independence of the
Republic of Nagorny Karabakh”. The Parliament also appealed to the United
Nations and the international community to recognize the Republic and to help
prevent the extermination of the local Armenian population.
43. Following the collapse of the USSR, on the territory of the former Azerbaijani
SSR two States were formed: the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of
Nagorny Karabakh. The establishment of both States has similar legal basis; and
therefore the establishment of the Republic of Nagorny Karabakh on the basis of its
peoples’ right to self-determination should not be considered in the scope of
territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan. This was also confirmed by the
resolution of the European Parliament “On the support for the peace process in the
Caucasus” of 21 June 1999, which recognizes the fact that Nagorny Karabakh
declared its independence following similar declarations by former Soviet
Republics.
44. In 1991, restoring its independence as a successor of the Republic of
Azerbaijan of 1918-1920 and rejecting its Soviet legal heritage of 1920-1991, the
Azerbaijani SSR lost all claims to the territories transferred to Soviet Azerbaijan in
July 1921, including Nagorny Karabakh. Thus, the Republic of Nagorny Karabakh
was formed on territories over which the Republic of Azerbaijan had no sovereignty.

III. Attributes of the independent State of the Republic of
Nagorny Karabakh

45. Nagorny Karabakh gained its independence according to the domestic and
international legal norms. In parallel to this legal process, Nagorny Karabakh
successfully established all structures and attributes for the formation of an
independent State:
Defined territory: Nagorny Karabakh exercises sovereign jurisdiction on a
defined territory with its borders and is capable of providing security and normal
living conditions to its citizens.
Permanent population: the vast majority of the people of Nagorny Karabakh
constitute a homogenous group with historical ties to its territory.
Permanent administration exercising exclusive jurisdiction on a defined
territory and people: Nagorny Karabakh is a Republic with presidential governing
system. The National Assembly is the highest legislative body of the Republic.
Since 1991 the National Assembly has adopted a series of laws necessary for the
foundation of the country’s political structures, executive and judicial authorities.
The Government comprises the Prime Minister and 12 Ministries. Since 1998, after
the adoption of the corresponding law local governance has also been operational in
Nagorny Karabakh. In 2006 the Constitution of the Republic was adopted via
referendum. Regular presidential, parliamentary and local elections have been held
since December 1991.4 The most recent presidential elections were held in Nagorny
Karabakh in 2007 and Bako Sahakyan was elected the new President of the
Republic.
Government engaged in discussions with foreign States: On 20 September
1992, the Parliament of Nagorny Karabakh petitioned the United Nations, the
Commonwealth of Independent States, and individual countries for recognition. A
series of documents on Nagorny Karabakh problem adopted by various international
organizations, as well as numerous mediation efforts of individual States, clearly
demonstrate that Nagorny Karabakh has always been a prominent factor in the peace
negotiations, a regional factor and an independent entity, which is proved by a
number of signatures of officials of Nagorny Karabakh on various documents. These
documents include the Zheleznovodsk Communiqué of 23 September 1991, issued
after official talks held in Zheleznovodsk, Russia, at the initiative of the Russian and
Kazakh Presidents; the Sochi Agreement of 19 September 1992, signed by the
defence authorities of Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh and Armenia, which calls for
cessation of all military activities for two months; a military-technical protocol on
the implementation of the Sochi Agreement signed on 25 September 1992, in
Moscow; the Timetable of Urgent Steps proposed by the Chairman of the CSCE
Minsk Group of September 1993, in which Nagorny Karabakh appears as a side to
the conflict for the first time; the Bishkek Protocol of May 1994, signed at
negotiations of the Speakers of Parliaments of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorny
Karabakh; and the Agreement on ceasefire, mediated by the Russian Federation on
12 May 1994, and signed by the Ministers of Defence of Armenia and Azerbaijan
and the Commander of the Nagorny Karabakh armed forces. Besides, starting from
1992, the authorities of Azerbaijan held regular direct contacts with the authorities
of Nagorny Karabakh: 15 September 1992, contacts between the representatives of
Azerbaijan and Nagorny Karabakh in Moscow; 28 July 1993, meeting of
governmental delegations of Nagorny Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan, headed by
the Chairman of the Nagorny Karabakh Republic Self-Defence Committee
Serzh Sargsyan and Azerbaijani Acting Defence Minister Safar Abiyev at the
Martakert contact line. Foreign Minister of the Nagorny Karabakh Republic
Ghoukasian, Head of National Security Department of the Nagorny Karabakh
Republic Abrahamian, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of the Nagorny Karabakh
Republic Aghassian and State Minister of Azerbaijan Aliev, representative of
Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan Zoulfougarov and Chairman of the Commission on
exchange of hostages of Azerbaijan Kiazimov were also in the delegations of the
parties. As a result, the parties signed an Agreement on prolongation of the previous
agreement on refraining from any military activities; negotiations between the
Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Azerbaijani Republic A. Jalilov
and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Nagorny Karabakh A. Ghoukasian held on
12 and 13 September 1993, in Moscow where a joint communiqué was adopted; the
meeting between the Vice Prime Ministers of Nagorny Karabakh and Azerbaijan
(Zh. Poghosian and A. Abbasov) held on 25 September 1993 on the Aghdam contact
line; meeting of the leaders of Azerbaijan and Nagorny Karabakh held on
25 September 1993 in Moscow; regular communications were held between Baku
and Stepanakert at the level of military and political leaders in summer and fall
1993.
In 1993-1994, a series of trilateral negotiations under Russian mediation took
place in Moscow between the political top leadership and representatives of Defence
Ministries of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Nagorny Karabakh and the
Republic of Armenia. As a result, several agreements were reached on reciprocal
cessation of artillery bombardments and offensive military operations, prolongation
of the ceasefire regime, mutual release of the detained women and children, and
other issues. The active involvement of Nagorny Karabakh in the process of
negotiations within the CSCE framework is witnessed by the First Additional
meeting of the CSCE Council held in Helsinki on 24 March 1992, which decided to
convene a conference on Nagorny Karabakh and invited the legitimate authorities of
Nagorny Karabakh to the Conference as an interested party; the 1994 CSCE
Budapest Summit, where the participating States welcomed the affirmation of the
ceasefire agreement reached on 12 May 1994, by the parties to the conflict
(Azerbaijan, Nagorny Karabakh and Armenia) and announced their readiness to
deploy multinational CSCE peacekeeping force, and reached an agreement on the
creation of the High-level Planning Group of the OSCE; the 31 March 1995
statement of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, which confirmed the previous OSCE
decisions on the status of the parties to the conflict, and provided for the
participation of the two member States involved in the conflict and Nagorny
Karabakh as a third party to the conflict, as well as the Minsk Conference in the
whole process of negotiations.
In addition, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs during their regional trips
travel to Nagorny Karabakh and meet with the Karabakh authorities.
However, throughout the OSCE mediation process the Republic of Azerbaijan
has refused to include the representatives of Nagorny Karabakh in the negotiation
process despite the fact that the previous rounds of formal negotiations in the
mid-1990s were conducted with the participation of representatives of Nagorny
Karabakh. Azerbaijan concerned that the participation of Nagorny Karabakh in the
talks might imply some degree of a de facto status for Nagorny Karabakh.
Azerbaijan’s such stance on the issue reveals its real objectives: (a) provide no
support to the process of negotiations as long as possible, hoping that the revenues
from the Caspian oil would help to pressure on Armenia and achieve a settlement in
their favour; (b) falsify the nature of the conflict, to present it as a territorial dispute
between Armenia and Azerbaijan with all relevant consequences; (c) obscure
Azerbaijan’s responsibility for transforming the process of self-determination of
Nagorny Karabakh into a military conflict and the resulting de facto situation; and
(d) act as a victim in need of international assistance.
Representative offices of Nagorny Karabakh in the United States of America,
France, Russia, Lebanon, Germany, Australia and Armenia also show an active
international involvement of the Republic of Nagorny Karabakh.

IV. International response to the blockade imposed on Armenia and
Nagorny Karabakh

46. The international community, through the respective resolutions of
international organizations, severely criticized the Azerbaijani blockade of the
Republic of Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh, describing it as a violation of human
rights, particularly in the European Parliament resolutions of 18 June 1987,
18 January 1990, and 21 January and 27 May 1993, the Council of Europe
Parliamentary Assembly motion for recommendation on the situation in Nagorny
Karabakh/Atkinson motion, submitted on 22 September 1992 by 30 members, etc.
The United States Congress has been actively engaged in promoting the
resolution to the conflict. The Congress has focused its attention on Nagorny
Karabakh primarily through foreign operations appropriations legislation: the
allocation of funding to promote resolution of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict and
provide incentives to the parties to the conflict to reach such a resolution; the
provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Nagorny Karabakh; the
viability of restrictions on direct aid to the Republic of Azerbaijan put in place in
response to Azerbaijan’s blockade of the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of
Nagorny Karabakh.
The international community must clearly and unambiguously react to the
militaristic policy of Azerbaijan. Urgent steps must be taken to address the
dangerous and volatile situation in the South Caucasus region, to prevent any
possible military actions that are still at the planning stage and to ensure that
Azerbaijan adheres to its international obligations.

Footnotes:
1 On 1 December 1920, the Fifth Committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations arrived at
the conclusion that: Azerbaijan could not be regarded de jure a “full self-governing state”, as it
had not been recognized de jure by any member of the League of Nations. Moreover, the
territory claimed by Azerbaijan “occupying a superficial area of 40,000 square miles appears to
have never formerly constituted a State, but always been included in larger groups such as the
Mongol or Persian and since 1813, the Russian Empire”.

2 “The people’s economy of the Azerbaijan SSR” confirms that in 1981-1985 the per capita
investments in Nagorny Karabakh half the average in Azerbaijan, and in 1986, this number
reached 2.7.

3 The observers were the representatives of the former Union Republics, deputies of the
Supreme Soviets of the USSR, Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Mossoviet
and representatives of various international organizations and foreign States.
of which 108,615 (99.89 per cent) voted in favour. 17.8 per cent of the registered
voters, mostly of Azerbaijani origin, did not participate. As a result Nagorny
Karabakh was the only autonomy which gained independence before the collapse of
the USSR according to the existing domestic legislation and the norms of
international law.

4 The elections were observed by international observers (British Helsinki Human Rights
Group, Centre for the Comparative Study of Elections, Moscow Academy of Sciences for
National Security Issues, Moscow Foundation for Social, Economic and Intellectual
Programs).