Armenia on Thursday instituted proceedings against Azerbaijan before the International Court of Justice in the Hague for the breach of international judicial norms set forth by the United Nations with regard to violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

According to court documents, in the motion Armenia contends that for “decades, Azerbaijan has subjected Armenians to racial discrimination” and that as “a result of this State-sponsored policy of Armenian hatred, Armenians have been subjected to systemic discrimination, mass killings, torture and other abuse.”

According to Armenia, these violations are directed at individuals of Armenian ethnic or national origin regardless of their actual nationality. Armenia claims that “[t]hese practices once again came to the fore in September 2020, after Azerbaijan’s aggression against the Republic of Artsakh and Armenia” and that “[d]uring that armed conflict, Azerbaijan committed grave violations of the CERD.”

In the filing, Armenia said “after the end of hostilities,” following the ceasefire which entered into effect on November 10 2020, “Azerbaijan has continued to engage in the murder, torture and other abuse of Armenian prisoners of war, hostages and other detained persons”.

In the application, Armenia said that Azerbaijan is responsible for violating the CERD several pertinent articles.

Armenia further contends that all “good-faith efforts by Armenia to put an end to Azerbaijan’s violations of the CERD through other means [have] failed.”

Through this action, therefore, Armenia requests the Court “to hold Azerbaijan responsible for its violations of the CERD, to prevent future harm, and to redress the harm that has already been caused.”

Armenia said that the purpose of the filing is to “protect and preserve Armenia’s rights and the rights of Armenians from further harm, and to prevent the aggravation or extension of this dispute, pending the determination of the merits of the issues raised in the Application,” saying that the court should indicate certain provisional measures “as a matter of extreme urgency.”