BAKU, Azerbaijan, June 19. Chingiz Asgarov, the Authorized Representative of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the European Court of Human Rights, has issued a statement regarding the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on June 18, 2026, in the case of “V.T. and Others v. Azerbaijan.”

The statement reads:

“The Republic of Azerbaijan emphasizes that it considers the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2026, in the case of ‘V.T. and Others v. Azerbaijan’ to be unjust, biased, contrary to the provisions of international law, and further evidence that the European Court has once again become involved in political games.

In its judgment, the European Court concluded that the Republic of Azerbaijan had violated the European Convention on Human Rights based on the testimony of three individuals, without any reliable evidence, without conducting a comprehensive examination of the circumstances of the case, and relying on ‘reports’ produced by criminal structures that referred to themselves as the state authorities of the ‘NKR.’

It is particularly concerning that, despite numerous letters, observations, and objections submitted by the Azerbaijani side over many years, the European Court once again employed terminology that is unacceptable to Azerbaijan and contradicts its internationally recognized sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Phrases such as ‘the line of contact between Azerbaijan and the “NKR”,’ as well as references to the so-called army, authorities, prosecutor general, and ombudsman of the ‘NKR,’ create the impression of legal or factual equality between the Republic of Azerbaijan and an illegal separatist entity that has not been recognized by any state or international organization.

In this regard, it should be noted that although the European Court acknowledged in its judgment of June 16, 2015, in the case of ‘Chiragov and Others v. Armenia’ that part of Azerbaijan’s territory had been occupied by Armenia, the use of the term ‘NKR’ in the current judgment with respect to territories that remained under occupation until November 2020 contradicts basic logic. The Court’s 2015 judgment clearly stated that the armed forces of the Republic of Armenia were deployed on Azerbaijani territory, that a significant portion of Armenia’s state budget was directed toward maintaining those territories, and that the occupation regime operating on Azerbaijani land existed through Armenia’s direct involvement and comprehensive support.

The judgment delivered yesterday did not examine at all why a serviceman who was a citizen of Armenia and born in the Republic of Armenia was serving on the sovereign territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Had this issue been considered, the European Court should have applied the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law. However, its ‘failure’ to address this circumstance effectively served to produce the conclusion the Court was seeking to reach.

Furthermore, the following question arises: if the judgment states that the events occurred on the territory of the ‘NKR,’ that the investigation was conducted by the ‘state authorities of the NKR,’ and that information regarding the incident was reflected in a report by the ‘NKR ombudsman,’ why were the investigation materials submitted to the European Court as evidence not by the applicants but by the Republic of Armenia? It is obvious that had the Court provided clarification on these issues, it would have been far more difficult to reach the conclusions contained in the judgment.

I believe that portraying the ‘NKR’ as an independent entity and referring to a line of contact between the ‘NKR’ and the Republic of Azerbaijan should be regarded not only as a distortion of the European Court’s case law but also as a manifestation of disrespect for the state sovereignty of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The judgment is also characterized by an openly one-sided presentation of the facts. In essence, the Court accepted the version of events presented by the applicants and supported by the Government of Armenia, while failing to take into account—or assign due weight to—the objective difficulties Azerbaijan faced in verifying claims regarding events allegedly occurring in territories that were not under its effective control at the time. Materials submitted by the Armenian side and the structures of the self-proclaimed ‘NKR’ were treated as credible evidence, whereas Azerbaijan’s position was assessed not through an impartial legal analysis but through a demonstrably one-sided approach.

In other words, the judgment is based entirely on assumptions and arguments supporting the narrative advanced by the Armenian side.

The ruling on compensation is also entirely unacceptable. By awarding compensation separately to each member of the same family rather than jointly to the affected family as a whole, the Court departed from its established practice in similar cases. This creates the impression that the decision was reached not through the consistent and principled application of the Court’s own case law, but under the influence of an emotional and one-sided approach.

It should be particularly emphasized that the Authorized Representative of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly protested manifestations of disrespect toward the state sovereignty and legitimate interests of the Republic of Azerbaijan, yet the European Court continues to adhere to such practices.

Such judgments of the European Court create the impression that the Court, having joined the disreputable political games of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, cannot come to terms with the liberation of Azerbaijan’s territories from Armenian occupation and is seeking by every means to take revenge on the Azerbaijani state and people.

This practice raises serious doubts regarding the transparency, impartiality, fairness, and authority of the international court, and appropriate steps will therefore be taken.

The Authorized Representative of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the European Court of Human Rights, Chingiz Asgarov, firmly rejects the conclusions contained in the European Court’s judgment in the case of ‘V.T. and Others v. Azerbaijan’ and states that all available legal and procedural remedies will be considered in response to this erroneous judgment.”