On September 19, 2023, military operations initiated by Azerbaijan led to the forced displacement of the entire remaining Armenian population in Artsakh, numbering approximately 100,600 individuals. This mass exodus was preceded by several  events: the 44-day war of 2020; the displacement of residents from Shushi, Hadrut, and other regions of Artsakh that came under Azerbaijani control; a nine-month blockade of the Lachin Corridor; and the systematic destruction of unique cultural heritage sites.

A significant number of experts have postulated that processes of forced displacement constitute a form of ongoing warfare, which at times even surpasses the direct horrors of armed conflict in terms of the problems it engenders (ICRC, Displacement in Times of Armed Conflict: How International Humanitarian Law Protects in War and Why It Matters, 2019, p. 6). As a consequence of deliberate policies enacted by the Azerbaijani government, 121,000 Armenians from Artsakh have been separated from their socio-cultural values, preventing them from engaging in practices related to the natural environment, cultural heritage, and the communal and cultural landscape of their historical homeland. The forced removal of more than 4,000 historical monuments within the territory of Artsakh, the direct threats to their existence, the numerous heritage sites that have already been destroyed or desecrated, and the impossibility of maintaining one's own identity have created insurmountable challenges in sustaining the vibrancy of cultural traditions and celebrations.

Deportation, among other humanitarian concerns, violates the fundamental cultural rights of the Armenians of Artsakh. This right is enshrined in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: "Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits" (UN 1948, Art. 27.1). UNESCO's interpretation of this article affirms that the right to participate in the cultural life of the community also guarantees everyone's right to access cultural heritage and to participate in and enjoy cultural practices.

Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute defines forced displacement as a serious crime against humanity. Furthermore, international prohibitions on forced displacement are established, characterizing such acts as expulsions, violence, or other forms of coercion (ICC, Policy on Cultural Heritage, para. 69). Article 7(2)(d) of the Statute further specifies "forcible displacement" as the forced removal of civilians from their legal residence by deportation or other coercive measures without grounds permitted under international law (ICC, Rome Statute, 7(2)(d)). It is important to note that the contextual elements of the article mentioned above indicate that the term "forcible" is not limited to physical force. It may also include threats of force or coercion, such as fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression, or abuse of power (ICC, Elements of Crimes, Article 7(1)(d): element 1, fn. 12). This definition describes situations where individuals do not have a genuine choice to remain in or leave their territory. In this context, it is crucial to emphasize that even if the Armenians of Artsakh left the region due to security concerns, their displacement cannot be regarded as "voluntary" or "legal." Moreover, even if the displaced individuals expressed a desire to be removed from the territory and actively requested such removal, this does not necessarily indicate that they had a genuine choice. The absence of a clear order or directive can lead to situations where individuals feel compelled to act in ways that may not align with their true preferences. Forced displacement is prohibited in non-international armed conflicts (ICRC, 2009). Consequently, the lack of genuine choice may also constitute grounds for classifying such deportation as "forcible" due to its coercive nature.

The deliberate destruction of cultural heritage in the occupied territories of Artsakh during the 44-day war and the following four years is weighty evidence to consider the displacement of the people of Artsakh by Azerbaijan as "forcible." Let's give just a few facts. They are: the destruction of the Church of Surb Astvatsatsin in Jebrayil (Mekhakavan), the destruction and distortion of the dome of the Holy Savior (Surb Amenaprkich) Ghazanchetsots Church in Shushi, the destruction and complete demolition of the dome and bell tower of the Hovhannes Mkrtich Church of the Green Hour (Kanach Zham), the destruction of the "Revival" khachkar in the village of Hadrut Arakel, the complete destruction of the Surb Sargis Church in the village of Mokhrenes, the destruction of the monument dedicated to the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide in Shushi, the destruction of the "Resurrected Talish" monuments in the village of Talish, the destruction of the historical cemeteries of Shushi and Sghnakh, the disappearance of 51 sculptures from the "Garden of Sculptures" attached to the State Museum of Fine Arts of Shushi, the destruction of the State Museum of Geology named after Grigor Gabrielyants, the desecration of the churches of Dadivank, the Surb Khach Monastery of Hadrut, the Surb Astvatsatsin of Tsakuri, the Surb Yeghishe of Mataghis, the Surb Hovhannes of Togh, the desecration of the function of Armenian churches by representatives of the Udi community, etc. In Stepanakert, the statues of Stepan Shahumyan, Alexander Myasnikyan, the memorial stone of Ashot Ghulyan, the monument of Artsvi in the upper part of Stepanakert, and the statue of Charles Aznavour in the Armenian-French park were destroyed; the cemeteries of Hadrut were damaged; the 7th-century church of Vankasar was desecrated and its cross removed; Surb Sargis of the Tsar was destroyed; the khachkars of the medieval churches of Surb Grigor with their unique inscriptions were demolished; the village of Mokhrenes with its Surb Astvatsatsatsin Church was leveled. The two khachkars of the monument-spring of Aghanus village and the monument of Getavan were destroyed; the Azeriization and Turkification program of historical Hadrut was initiated; the Islamization program of Shushi was launched; and the new program called "Western Azerbaijan," which covers the current territory of Armenia, was activated.

These and many other actions are classified as war crimes under the conventions and international regulations of UNESCO and the Council of Europe. Sooner or later,  Azerbaijan will be held accountable for these actions.