The Caucasus Muslims Board has issued a statement justifying the destruction of Stepanakert’s Cathedral of the Protection of the Holy Mother of God, describing reports about the demolition of the structure as cultural property as disinformation and a manifestation of hostile attitudes.

The statement asserts that “the removal of two buildings unlawfully erected in Stepanakert during the occupation of Azerbaijani territories cannot be characterized as the destruction of religious or cultural heritage. Following the restoration of full sovereignty over its territories in 2023, Azerbaijan maintained these unauthorized buildings as symbols of occupation.”

At the same time, according to the statement, in recent months, former internally displaced persons, who are allegedly returning en masse to their native settlements, have repeatedly appealed to state bodies and local courts, demanding the demolition of all structures that had not existed in those territories before the occupation.

The statement further contends that, under international humanitarian law, buildings constructed by an occupying power in occupied territory, irrespective of their function, are deemed unlawful and subject to removal at the expense of the occupying state. “Accordingly, there is both a legal and ethical justification for dismantling all buildings illicitly constructed in regions where Azerbaijanis were killed and displaced,” the statement says.

Our response

It is important to note that the use of the term “occupied territories” by the Caucasus Muslims Board is contentious from the perspective of international law, as it disregards the right of peoples to self-determination, enshrined in Article 1(2) of the Charter of the United Nations (Charter of the United Nations, Article 1(2), 1945), as well as in common Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1, 1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR — International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 1, 1966). Under these principles, all peoples have the right freely to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Therefore, the fact that a given state formation does not enjoy broad international recognition does not, in itself, exclude its claim to statehood or the existence of de facto state institutions.

aIt should also be emphasized that the people of Artsakh, in their historical homeland and in accordance with their historical presence and cultural identity, created a rich cultural heritage which, within the framework of international humanitarian and cultural law, continues to be regarded as protected cultural property, irrespective of the factual territorial control exercised over the area at a given moment. In particular, Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, Hague Convention, Article 1, 14 May 1954) defines cultural property as follows: “movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, irrespective of origin or ownership, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular, archaeological sites, and other objects of scientific, artistic, or historical interest.”