- Ms. Badalyan, responding to your comment on October 4, the spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan stated that after getting acquainted with the decision of the Constitutional Court of Armenia on the regulation on Joint Activity of the Commissions on the delimitation of the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, they came to the conclusion that the decision further emphasizes the territorial claims against Azerbaijan in the Constitution of Armenia. What are your thoughts on this matter?

- The decision of the Constitutional Court very clearly and directly stipulates that only those provisions of the 1990 Declaration of Independence of Armenia, which are literally reflected in the articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, have constitutional force. Therefore, it is not possible to attribute anything to the Constitution that’s not written in the Constitution’s text which follows the preamble, I mean the articles of the Constitution, and there is simply no space for any misinterpretation, especially when the High Court confirmed that its previous decisions never took any other stance. Thus, the fundamental principles and national goals of the Armenian statehood, indicated in the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, are those which are afterwards expressed in the subsequent articles of the Constitution, and none of them can be interpreted as a territorial claim against any country.

- The spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan claimed that other legal acts of Armenia also contain territorial claims against Azerbaijan.

- The Republic of Armenia has touched upon this issue several times at the highest level. Part 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution of Armenia stipulates that ratified international treaties have legal superiority over domestic legislation. The article specifically outlines: “In case of controversy between the norms of international treaties ratified by the Republic of Armenia and domestic laws, the norms of international treaties shall apply”. The agreed-upon part of the draft Agreement on the Establishment of Peace and Interstate Relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan contains an article stipulating that both sides have no territorial claims against each other and commit not to make such a claim in the future. There is also an article that none of the sides can invoke its domestic legislation to hinder the implementation of the Peace treaty. In other words, when the Peace treaty is signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan, affirmed by the Constitutional Court being in compliance with the Constitution and ratified by the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, it will have legal superiority over any domestic law. Therefore, the signing of the Peace treaty will dispel all concerns of both Armenia and Azerbaijan regarding various legislative acts of the two countries, if they exist.

-The spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan also stated that Armenia’s commitment to the Alma-Ata Declaration doesn’t mean that Armenia has no territorial claim against Azerbaijan because the Alma-Ata Declaration does not address the issue where the borders of CIS member states pass and which territories belong to which country.

- This interpretation is completely inappropriate, as the Alma-Ata Declaration of December 21, 1991, clearly states that the sides recognize each other’s territorial integrity and the inviolability of the existing borders. Therefore, the signatory countries of the Alma-Ata Declaration recognized the integrity of the de jure territories of Soviet Republics at the time of the collapse of the USSR as well as recognized the de jure existing inter-republican administrative borders as state borders. These borders are well known, and the relevant maps of these borders exist both in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

By the way, the wording of the Peace treaty stipulating that the sides are committed not to have territorial claims against each other in the future dispels the claims made by Azerbaijan that Armenia has a “reserved option” to put forward territorial claims against Azerbaijan.

Just the opposite, the interpretation of the Alma-Ata Declaration made by the spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan can actually imply that Azerbaijan itself has territorial claims against Armenia and is simply trying to create a smokescreen with accusations against Armenia.

- The spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan again touched upon the acquisition of weapons and equipment by Armenia, calling it mass militarization.

- If we compare the military expenditures of Armenia and Azerbaijan both in absolute numbers, in proportion, and in the types of purchased weapons, we will see who is carrying out mass militarization. On the contrary, the highest leadership of the Republic of Armenia declares that it is not going to adopt a security concept based only on the army and considers the normalization of relations with its neighbors and the establishment of peace in the region to be an important part of its security concept. While the highest leadership of Azerbaijan declares that their main task is to strengthen the country’s military capabilities.

I would like to once again recall the fact that Armenia has repeatedly proposed to Azerbaijan and is still proposing to create mutual arms control mechanisms, and Azerbaijan leaves this proposal unanswered, adopting more and more aggressive rhetoric towards the Republic of Armenia. I reiterate that the Republic of Armenia has no agenda, including offensive, other than defending itself against possible aggressions. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan almost on daily basis makes comments full of threats towards the Republic of Armenia.

- The spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan also stated that Armenia has started a campaign aimed at hindering the participation of world leaders in the COP-29 summit to be held in Baku in November. How would you comment on this?

- I want to draw your attention to the fact that the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan did not respond in any way to the questions raised in my comment of October 4. Those questions were as follows: is Azerbaijan preparing aggression against the Republic of Armenia? Does it refuse to recognize the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia? Does it refrain from the peace agenda? Aggressive rhetoric of official Baku, rejection of proposals to sign the Peace treaty with the agreed articles make many Armenian and international experts conclude that Azerbaijan will use COP-29 to create a smokescreen of legitimacy to escalate the situation in the near future. Moreover, the number of such analyses is increasing. Many analysts are of the opinion that in order to exclude such a prospect, it is necessary to sign the agreed content of the Peace treaty before COP-29. Otherwise, without it, the leaders going to Baku may unwillingly become warmongers. Armenia, for its part, says that it is ready for the logic of signing the Peace treaty before COP-29. I would like to emphasize that the Republic of Armenia supported the decision to hold COP-29 in Baku as a measure for building trust between the parties and establishing peace in the region. We wouldn’t like it to be used for the opposite purpose.