On February 1, 2025, one year elapsed since the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force for the Republic of Armenia. Armenia formally ratified the Statute on February 1, 2024, and an official ceremony at the ICC marked this occasion on February 8, 2024 (https://www.facebook.com/ArmSpoxMFA/posts/pfbid0pVh1tb9KPs4WAh1JTKQguUE26PCRXvsnBM5xdvsTRv6DVyux12ZjEsGLy3qCHr13l). By doing so, Armenia became the 124th State Party to the Rome Statute. Earlier, on October 3, 2023, the National Assembly of Armenia approved the Law on the Ratification of the Rome Statute by a vote of 60–22 (https://www.azatutyun.am/a/32620778.html). It should be noted that Armenia had originally signed the Rome Statute in 1999 (http://www.parliament.am/draft_docs8/K-658_AGN_Cank.pdf).

The entry into force of the Rome Statute not only affords the possibility of imposing penalties for crimes against humanity but also creates additional guarantees and mechanisms for the protection of the rights of forcibly displaced Artsakh Armenians and the safeguard of Artsakh’s cultural heritage. The Statute pursues two primary objectives:

1. Prevention of Further Atrocities and Provision of Additional Security Guarantees.
2. Recognition of the Court’s Jurisdiction with Retroactive Effect. This provision enables the ICC to examine both the forced displacement of Artsakh Armenians and violations of cultural rights, including prohibitions on access to heritage sites, that occurred between 2020 and 2024—as well as earlier acts of genocide (in this case, against the Armenian people).

Despite the potential for the Statute to protect cultural heritage and to provide leverage against its destruction, the past year (2024) has witnessed precisely the opposite: Artsakh Armenians’ cultural heritage has been systematically destroyed, appropriated, and desecrated by Azerbaijani authorities. Examples of cultural heritage destruction and endangerment documented in 2024 can be found in the “Alerts” section of the Monument Watch website (https://monumentwatch.org/hy/alerts/).

Under Article 7(1)(b) of the 1998 Rome Statute, genocide is defined as a crime against humanity. Article 7(1)(d) identifies the forcible transfer of a population likewise as a crime against humanity. The Statute’s Policy on Cultural Heritage (2021) affirms that crimes directed against—or affecting—cultural heritage, whether occurring in armed conflict or peacetime, also fall within the ICC’s jurisdiction (ICC, 2021, Policy on Cultural Heritage, § 98). Furthermore, the Statute classifies certain violations of international humanitarian law as war crimes, including the willful targeting of civilian populations or civilian objects (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) and attacks on cultural heritage sites that are not legitimate military objectives (Article 8(2)(b)(ix) and Article 8(2)(e)(iv)).

In the context of safeguarding the rights of Artsakh Armenians forcibly displaced from their homeland, it is important to emphasize that the right to culture occupies a primary status within the Rome Statute framework. This right encompasses Armenia’s obligations under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966), which guarantees every individual the right to partake in the cultural life of their community, the freedom of scientific and creative expression, and access to cultural heritage (ICESCR, Article 15(a)).

The mass displacements of Artsakh Armenians that occurred in September 2023—and earlier during the 44-day conflict in 2020, especially from Shushi, Hadrut, and other regions—may be examined under the Statute’s provisions. Precedent exists: if forced displacement begins in a non-State Party but culminates in a State Party to the Rome Statute, the ICC may claim jurisdiction over the matter (as in the Prosecutor v. Myanmar/Bangladesh case, ICC-01/19).

The Rome Statute’s approach to cultural heritage is broad, underscoring that heritage comprises both tangible and intangible elements and must be understood in its full contextual integrity (ICC, 2021, Policy on Cultural Heritage, § 3). Notably, the Statute’s use of the term “cultural heritage” (rather than “cultural property,” as in the Hague Convention) allows for a more comprehensive scope of crimes against heritage (ICC, 2021, Policy on Cultural Heritage, § 14), including violations of the right to culture. Moreover, the Statute recognizes heritage as a fundamental factor in shaping a community’s sense of identity and belonging (ICC, 2021, Policy on Cultural Heritage, § 15).

The Statute further confirms that attacks on cultural heritage may constitute violations of human rights (ICC, 2021, Policy on Cultural Heritage, § 28).

This perspective implies that the consequences of the forced displacement of Artsakh Armenians could fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction—particularly insofar as the protection of their cultural rights is inseparable from the broader protection of human rights. Simultaneously, the recognition of the right to culture as a fundamental right strengthens the legal basis for preserving the cultural heritage of displaced Artsakh Armenians, including their access to historic sites in Artsakh and the free expression of their cultural identity.