Anti-corruption court to be set up in Armenia

Panorama, Armenia
Jan 13 2021
 
 
Armenia will have a specialized anti-corruption court that will hear not only cases of corruption crimes but also civil cases related to confiscation of property of illegal origin, Armenia's Minister of Justice Rustam Badasyan told reporters on Wednesday.
 
In the minister's words, before the specialized court is established, cases related to corruption crimes and confiscation of illegal property will be administered by other courts.
 
"Our aim is to ensure specialized approach to cases of corruption, since their consideration requires additional knowledge. Apart from that, both we as well as the public do not unequivocally trust the existing judicial system, we have voiced on numerous occasions. Yes, this is also an opportunity to test the integrity of the judges," explained the minister.
 
Asked about the selection process of the judges, Badasyan noted that potential candidates will undergo a vetting process for their integrity at the Corruption Prevention Commission of Armenia before taking an oral examination at the Supreme Judicial Council.
 
The latter is endowed with the constitutional mission to ensure independence of the judicial system. The Commission will, on its part, will issue recommendations per candidates. The authorized body can refer to that recommendation for selection decision. Both acting judges as well as individuals meeting the necessary requirements can apply through an open competition to be appointed as a judge of the new anti-corruption court, the minister said.
 

Turkish press: Dawn of great power competition in South Caucasus

Local people wave Azerbaijani flags during a funeral ceremony in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, Azerbaijan, Oct. 8, 2020. (Photo by Getty Images)

The pace of geopolitical change in the South Caucasus is staggering, with the recent Karabakh war only underlining several major geopolitical trends in the region.

The first noticeable trend being the undercutting of democratic ideals and achievements of the region's states. Take Armenia, its young democracy had high hopes following the 2018 revolution, but now it will be more even more dependent on Russia.

It is not a matter of whether a democratic model is better or not, the matter lies in the incompatibility of an aspiring democracy with a powerful nondemocracy such as Russia.

The Armenian leadership will now have to make extensive concessions to Moscow to shore up its military, backtracking on its democratic values. Building a fair political system cannot go hand in hand with the Russian political model.

The war also put an end to any hopes of Armenia implementing a multivector foreign policy, an already highly scrutinized issue. Mistakes were made continuously along the way, the biggest being an overreliance on Russia.

In the buildup to 2020, Armenia's multiaxial foreign policy efforts gradually deteriorated, with the 2016 fighting showing the limits. Armenian politicians attempted to develop ties with other regional powers in the aftermath, but Russian influence had already begun to incrementally increase.

Tipping the scales in a no longer balanced alliance culminated in the 2020 war with Azerbaijan thanks to Yerevan's maneuvering. More crucially, the war has obliterated Yerevan's multiaxial policy efforts for years to come.

Now, Armenia's dependence on Russia would be even more pronounced with no viable geopolitical alternatives.

With no more foreign policy diversification, the three South Caucasus states are divided by larger regional powers, further fracturing the region.

The return of Turkey and the growth of the Russian military could resurrect the great power competition, in which a nation's military power, infrastructure projects and economic might are directly translated into their geopolitical influence over the region, ultimately deterring long-term conflict resolution.

The Western stance

The Karabakh war highlighted a regression in Western peacekeeping standards. The Western approach to conflict resolution based on equality rather than geopolitical interests has been trumped by the Russian alternative.

Moscow is not looking to resolve the conflict (it never does in territorial conflicts); instead, it is seeking to prolong it under its close watch in a bid to increase its influence.

Looking at the situation from the Russian perspective, it is clear the country will continue to influence Armenia and Azerbaijan, only now to a far greater extent than before.

The West's inability to accommodate fluid geopolitical realities in the South Caucasus also raises questions about its commitment to resolving the issues at hand. The second Karabakh war was more the result of the West's negligence to come up with a clear approach to the issue over the years.

The West can no longer treat the South Caucasus as a monolithic entity, and a diversified foreign policy should be applied in line with realities on the ground.

Policies should reflect each individual state, and the West should, perhaps, be more geopolitical in its approach.

Turkey's recent suggestion to create a six-nation pact bringing together the South Caucasus states, Russia, Turkey and Iran, shows the regression of Western influence in the region. But the geopolitical vacuum is never empty for long, and Turkey and Russia approach.

Georgia’s position

Georgia could act as the last bastion of dominant Western influence, but even there, the West should be cautious. The country is on the cusp of Europe, making it susceptible to foreign influence.

Bordered by Russia and Turkey, two powers often discerning of Europe, Georgia also feels the pressure to adapt to the changing circumstances on the ground.

The lack of Western resolve in the region and the Black Sea could propel Tbilisi if not toward a total reconsideration of its foreign policy, toward diversifying its foreign ties – one could call a "rebalancing."

The war also solidified that the Caspian basin and South Caucasus are inextricably linked to the greater Middle East.

Russia and Turkey are basing their strategies in the region on developments in the Middle East and the Black Sea region. Not since the end of the Soviet Union has the South Caucasus been such a critical point for the West, especially the incoming Biden administration.

But time is critical and any further delay in active U.S. policy could spell disaster for Georgia, which serves as a door to the Caspian and on to Central Asia.

The West has been in regression in the region for quite some time now; the Karabakh war only brought it to the light, and it must be proactive if things are to change.

Much will depend on the U.S. and its new administration, but the West will have to come to an understanding with Turkey, even if it be limited, to salvage its deteriorating position in the region.

After all, the South Caucasus has always been the only theater where Turkish and Western interests have always coincided. Considering its limited presence in the region, the West could consider backing Turkey.

Not only would it serve as a reconciliatory gesture pleasing Ankara, but it would also limit Russia's movement in the region. With the ink about to dry on who will influence the region, the West must immediately adapt its approach if it wishes to have any input in the rapidly changing geopolitics of the South Caucasus.

*Professor at European University, Tbilisi, Georgia




Nagorno-Karabakh: Russia’s Putin hosts Azeri, Armenian leaders

Al-Jazeera, Qatar
Jan 11 2021
Rival leaders did not shake hands at Kremlin meeting, only exchanging curt greetings as they sat down opposite Putin.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said it is time to discuss “next steps” regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh truce Moscow brokered, including the work of Russian peacekeepers stationed in the region, demarcation lines and humanitarian issues.
 
His comments came as he sat down for talks in the Kremlin on Monday with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, bringing together the leaders for the first time since the truce sealed in November ended six weeks of fighting over the contested Nagorno-Karabakh region.
Pashinyan and Aliyev did not shake hands, only exchanging curt greetings as they sat down at an oval table opposite Putin.
 
Putin said the peace agreement has been successfully implemented, “creating the necessary basis for a long-term and full-format settlement of the old conflict.”
 
The Russian-brokered peace agreement halted 44 days of conflict between the Azerbaijani army and Armenian forces over the mountainous region and surrounding areas, locking in territorial gains for Azerbaijan.
 
But tensions persist, with sporadic fighting, prisoners of war continuing to be held by both sides, and disagreements over how a prospective new transport corridor cutting through the region will work.
  
The region is within Azerbaijan’s borders and is not recognised as Armenian land by any country, including Armenia.
 
But it has been under the control of ethnic Armenian forces and self-appointed Armenian officials, backed by Armenia since a war between the rivals that claimed thousands of lives resulted in a ceasefire 1994.
 
Peace deal
Hostilities over Nagorno-Karabakh flared up again on September 27, 2020.
 
The Azerbaijani military pushed deep into the region and surrounding areas in fighting involving heavy artillery and drones that left more than 6,000 people dead on both sides, the majority of them soldiers.
 
 
Under the peace deal, Russia has deployed about 2,000 peacekeepers to Nagorno-Karabakh for at least five years.
 
The truce was celebrated in Azerbaijan as a major triumph, but sparked outrage and mass protests in Armenia, where thousands repeatedly took to the streets demanding Pashinyan’s resignation.
 
Many protesters on Monday tried to block a highway linking the Armenian capital with the airport to prevent Pashinyan from travelling to Moscow, but police dispersed them.
 
The Armenian prime minister has defended the deal as a painful but necessary move that prevented Azerbaijan from overrunning the entire Nagorno-Karabakh region.
 
 
Aliyev has meanwhile cast the war victory at home as an historic righting of wrongs, something Armenia rejects.
 
Azerbaijan and its ally Turkey have shut their borders with Armenia ever since the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict erupted, a blockade that has weakened the economy of the landlocked country.
 
Putin expands Russia’s military footprint
For Russia, the conflict highlighted the rising influence of Ankara in the South Caucasus, part of the former Soviet Union that Moscow has traditionally seen as its own sphere of influence.
 
But by brokering the deal and getting Russian peacekeepers on the ground, Putin has thwarted a stronger Turkish presence for now while expanding Moscow’s own military footprint.
 
 
Dmitri Trenin, a political analyst for the Moscow Carnegie Center, said the Kremlin hoped Monday’s talks would allow it to reaffirm its influence in the region.
 
“(The) peacekeeping function is Moscow’s advantage in its competitive relationship with Ankara,” Trenin wrote on Twitter. 
 
Journalist Onnik J Krikorian meanwhile said if Putin insisted on a “deal” between Armenia and Azerbaijan during Monday’s talks there “will be one”.
 
“That then raises the issue of longevity, but it does provide a window for economic links to be restored and for confidence-building measures to be implemented,” Kirkorian wrote on Twitter.
 
“And there are few, especially in Armenia, that will go against Russia. Successfully and without repercussions, anyway.”
 
SOURCE : AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

Writers Union of Armenia calls for Nikol Pashinyan’s resignation

Panorama, Armenia
Jan 9 2021
 
 
The Writers Union of Armenia called for the resignation of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his government and the formation of an interim government in a statement released ahead of the New Year.
 
"We must admit with sorrow that we are closing 2020 in a very alarming situation for our people and the homeland,” the union said, referring to the lack of prospects for economic and social development, the government’s mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic, the failed domestic and foreign policy and the country’s huge casualties and territorial losses in the recent Artsakh war.
 
“However, we believe that everything is not lost yet and there are still legal, diplomatic leverages, international formats and platforms which can be used to fight for pro-Armenian solutions and to make decisions with the involvement of serious and experienced professional forces and resources.
 
“But the current government can no longer do it.
 
“That is why we expect the resignation of the incumbent prime minister and the government, as well as the formation of a transitional government of national accord to achieve the goals stemming from the national interests and the vision of our people's future.
 
"God bless us all!” the statement said.
 

Pashinyan says complete exchange of PoWs, unblocking all regional connections is priority of Armenia

Save

Share

 11:17, 8 January, 2021

YEREVAN, JANUARY 8, ARMENPRESS. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has presented what he described as Armenia’s priority in the further implementation of the terms of the Karabakh armistice – the 2020 November 10 truce officially known as the Statement by President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and President of the Russian Federation which ended the 2020 war in Nagorno Karabakh.

Our priority in further implementing the November 10 trilateral statement is the following:

  1. A complete implementation of the 8th clause of the statement: Therefore a complete exchange of prisoners of war, hostages and other detained persons, and the bodies of the dead must take place. The implementation of extensive search and rescue operations where combat operations took place is also important for us.
  2. Unblocking of all economic and transport infrastructures of the region, which means both cargo shipments and transport connection from Armenia through Azerbaijan’s territory to Russia and Iran, as well as cargo shipments and transport connection from Azerbaijan to Nakhijevan through the territory of Armenia.

I am once again drawing attention on the fact that the [2020] November 10 statement does not include neither the “Meghri” nor the “corridor” terms related to any territory of the Republic of Armenia.

The selection of the connection routes from Armenia to Russia and from Azerbaijan to Nakhijevan is a separate topic of discussion, the efficiency of which depends on increasing the efficiency and volumes of the exchange of prisoners of war, hostages and other detained persons, and the bodies of the dead, as well as the search operations for those missing,” Pashinyan said in a statement on social media.

Editing and Translating by Stepan Kocharyan

Lawyer urges Armenian authorities to make public new document presumably planned to be signed in Moscow

Panorama, Armenia
Jan 8 2021

A group of people staged a protest in front of Armenia’s Ministry of Justice on Friday, demanding that the authorities make public the treaty presumably planned to be signed between Armenia and Azerbaijani at the upcoming trilateral meeting in Moscow.

Citing its sources, the channel MediaPort on Telegram said on Thursday that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is going to “make new concessions” in Moscow. "The document was secretly sent to the Ministry of Justice today in order to conform it with the Constitution," it said.

However, Ministry of Justice spokeswoman Lusine Martirosyan dismissed the reports as “fake news” on Friday.

Speaking to reporters, lawyer Elinar Vardanyan, a member of the Alternative Projects Group, stated the reports on the discussion of the document by the ministry may be true. According to her, it can be a preliminary step in case of submitting the document to be signed to the Constitutional Court in order to prevent its constitutional controversy.

"If actually such a document exists, it should be made public so that it doesn’t come as a surprise to the people as it was the case on November 10. They told lies to the people for 44 days, signing a document in a single day. And even today I am not satisfied with the short response of the Ministry of Justice spokeswoman on Facebook. I am not happy with the denial, because I am afraid that after 44 days of lying, another lie will be imposed on us," she said.

The lawyer urged authorities to publish the treaty if it really exists, instead of issuing a denial.

"If someone persuades me that Nikol Pashinyan is heading to Moscow unprepared on 11 January, I will be convinced once again that the authorities have completely failed. If the authorities are going to take part in such a crucial meeting unprepared, there are no authorities in the country,” she said.

According to Vardanyan, now people are carrying out their struggle on social media, because either they do not realize the threats facing the country, or it is just convenient for them.


The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Answering Some Intriguing Questions

INDRASTRA, India
Dec 14 2020

By Dr. Sitakanta Mishra

Associate Professor of International Relations, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Gujarat, India


Q.1: Armenia signed an agreement on a ceasefire and the withdrawal of its occupation forces from the territory of Azerbaijan. The problem is that she took this step after the military defeat. From the point of view of international law, what are the responsibilities of the party that lost the war?


The ‘realist’ paradigm suggests that one should not waste time arguing over the morality of the situation, because in practice “might makes right” or “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. It would be futile to expect that the defeated party in a war will assume the onus and meet its responsibilities voluntarily. This is not to suggest that the winning party should be harsh. In an interdependent world of today, it would not be possible to impose unilateral decisions in the post-war period as multiple players get involved normally in any conflict. Therefore, first, the concerned parties can amicably negotiate to settle the score. Or, second, the concerned parties can knock on the doors of the International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 2003 as a treaty arrangement between member states to provide a neutral international court. The ‘war guilt’ can be fixed following the above-mentioned ways. One can draw lessons from WWII and the Treaty of Versailles (under clause 231 – the ‘War Guilt Clause’) where Germany had to accept complete responsibility for the war.


Q.2: The Azerbaijani authorities announced that they would demand from Armenia $ 50 billion for the damage caused. But, as we know, Armenia does not have that kind of money. How does international law regulate the recovery of compensation funds from a party that does not have enough funds? 


Though the WWII situation and Germany’s case cannot be extrapolated to the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, significant inferences can be drawn from WWII history. The demand for reparations by Azerbaijan from Armenia through sound logical, the conflict between them is yet to end fully. It would be prudent to form a coalition of states concerned to ponder how to root out the causes of the conflict. Whether both conflicting parties should seek arbitration or adjudication method as bilateral negotiation seems unproductive to settle the competing claims and grievances.


As far as the extraction of reparation is concerned, Azerbaijan with support from its supporters can approach the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a claims reparation program created by the United Nations Security Council in May 1991, located in Geneva, Switzerland. The UNCC was established with the objectives to receive and decide claims against Iraq submitted on behalf of individuals, corporations, and governments (including mass claims on behalf of similarly situated individuals), and to pay compensation for such claims.


Q.3: As everyone knows, the signing of a ceasefire agreement, which is essentially a camouflaged form of Armenia's surrender, became possible with the direct participation of Moscow. If the Armenian side, overthrowing the Pashinyan government, brings radicals to power and resumes hostilities, how will the Russian leadership react to this? Suspicions are not taken from the ceiling, it is enough to look at what moods prevail in Yerevan …!


Conflict and the end result of conflict has a direct repercussion on the domestic politics of every country. It would be safe to assume that there might be political upheaval in Armenia which might culminate in a radical takeover of power. This would derail the temporary peace process in vogue. However, Russia, being a regional big-brother may not allow the situation to further deteriorate as this would invite critical questions on its ability as a global leader. Russia seems to have sufficient hold and ground on the conflict situation at the moment and it would not allow things to slip from its grip. On the other hand, Armenian leaders, be the moderates or radicals, will not be able to afford Russia’s wrath or loss of Moscow’s backing.


Q.4: The President of Azerbaijan has said that during the negotiations after the withdrawal of the Armenian forces, the issue of the status will not be discussed. Karabakh will not have any autonomy. Moreover, this statement did not receive any objections from Russia. Why? 


It is not prudent to draw any conclusion on the outcome of this protracted conflict or the ongoing negotiation process at this moment. Which way the conflict or its resolution will unfold is too early to predict. However, Azerbaijan having the upper hand in the current situation must bargain hard and explore all options to settle the conflict forever. Azerbaijan must channel aggressively the dominant presence of Russia and its influential role to its advantage.


Q.5: Suspicions were expressed that the Armenian side could carry out provocations against the Russian peacekeepers in order to provoke them to return fire. Everything in order to bring the program of Armenia's drift towards NATO to its logical end. Are there mechanisms to prevent provocations against Russian peacekeepers? 


I think Armenian leaders are matured enough and aware of the consequences of confronting Russian peacekeeping efforts. The fear rather emanates from non-state entities/mercenaries thriving in the region, any vested interest groups who would derail the peace process by resorting to violence to muddy the situation. The stakes of America and NATO in settling the conflict cannot be side-lined. Armenia would lean towards the US and NATO if the peace process does not address its grievances to its satisfaction. As the US is going through a political leadership transition amidst the COVID-19 health crisis and the President-elect will take some time to settle, Washington DC would not overlook Russia’s presence and role at once before putting its finger into the muddy waters.


Q.6: During the hostilities, Armenia launched missile strikes on civil and strategic targets on the territory of Azerbaijan outside the conflict zone. President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly said that those responsible for this will be brought to justice. How does this procedure go? Is the Hague Tribunal the only institution with the function of an international judicial and penitentiary body? 


The civilian casualty in any conflict is unwarranted and cannot be justified. The Armenian missile strikes on civil zones beyond the conflict zone in Azerbaijan tantamount to a war crime. This atrocity can be brought to the UN forum for global condemnation and swift action by the comity of nations. Beside the Hague Tribunal, UN Security Council, and International Court of Justice (ICJ), the issue can be raised at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as well which prohibits “Attacking, destroying, removing or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population” (Rule 54). 


Q.7: India, as an active participant and a serious player in the Eurasian space, is extremely interested in the stability in the South Caucasus. And the Karabakh conflict was one of the main dangers. Can we say that the resolution of the Karabakh issue is a pleasant event for India?


India has not publicly articulated its policy on South Caucasus yet, but the conflict in Eurasian theatre is undoubtedly a sensitive issue for New Delhi. Indian diplomacy has to walk a tight rope between the conflicting parties and outside powers. As far as Armenia is concerned, India has signed a Friendship and Cooperation Treaty (1995), which prohibits India from providing military or any other assistance to Azerbaijan. More importantly, India has received Armenia’s unequivocal support on the Kashmir issue whereas Azerbaijan, says Achal Malhotra, “not only supports but also promotes Pakistan’s narrative on this issue.” in 2008, India had gone to the extent of voting against Azerbaijan’s resolution in UNGA which demanded “the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all occupied territories of Azerbaijan”. Meanwhile, it would be difficult for India to endorse the Armenian demand for Nagorno-Karabakh’s right for self-determination, as it might prove to be a double standard when it comes to the Kashmir issue.


However, Azerbaijan is equally important a partner for India in the energy sector and connectivity projects. Though bilateral trade and investment between the two is low at present, the ONGC/OVL has made relatively small investments in an oilfield project and LNG supply in Azerbaijan. Moreover, Azerbaijan falls on India’s dream project – the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) route, connecting India with Russia through central Asia; it can also connect India with Turkey and beyond through Baku-Tbilisi-Kars passenger and freight rail link. Given India’s competition with China in operationalizing connectivity-corridor projects, Azerbaijan is having strategic significance for India.


Therefore, India does not fancy a dichotomous diplomatic situation; rather it would project its non-aligned posture arguing for a negotiated settlement of the conflict regionally, as regional conflicts are better resolved through a regional approach. Ideally, India would not favor the involvement of any outside entity, including Turkey. But, given the inevitable presence of multiple players in the conflict, India has expressed its support for the efforts by the OSCE Minsk Group (co-chaired by France, the Russian Federation, and the United States) to find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.


IndraStra Global is now available on
Apple NewsGoogle News, Flipboard, Feedburner, and Telegram

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this insight piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IndraStra Global.

https://www.indrastra.com/2020/12/Armenia-Azerbaijan-Conflict-QA-006-12-2020-0012.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR11bO7g-gIs6yupQJgvzl-HkETJ8OrT9wef_7dUlNQQilMZRvFdyYVKLYk


Turkish Press: Azerbaijani civilian killed by Armenian landmine blast

Anadolu Agency, Turkey
Jan 1 2021
Azerbaijani civilian killed by Armenian landmine blast

Ruslan Rehimov   | 01.01.2021

BAKU, Azerbaijan 

An Azerbaijani civilian has succumbed to wounds he sustained from an explosion caused by an Armenian landmine, according to a local authority on Friday.

The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement that Zabil Babayev stepped on a mine in Fuzuli province which was liberated from Armenian occupation.

An investigation has been launched into the incident and the public has been warned against entering liberated areas until the region is cleared of mines.

Mines planted by Armenian forces have claimed the lives of numerous Azerbaijani civilians and soldiers.

Liberation of Karabakh

Relations between the former Soviet republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan have been tense since 1991, when the Armenian military occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, internationally recognized as an Azerbaijani territory, and seven adjacent regions.

When new clashes erupted on Sept. 27, the Armenian army launched attacks on civilians and Azerbaijani forces and violated several humanitarian cease-fire agreements.

During the 44-day conflict, Azerbaijan liberated several cities and nearly 300 settlements and villages from the nearly three-decade-long occupation.

Despite the deal ending the conflict, the Armenian army several times violated the agreement and martyred several Azerbaijani soldiers and a civilian, as well as wounded few people, according to the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry.

*Writing by Sena Guler

Russia reports 26,513 new cases of COVID-19 in one day

Save

Share

 12:27,

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 30, ARMENPRESS. Russia confirmed 26,513 new coronavirus cases in the past day and the total case tally hit 3,131,550, TASS reports citing the anti-coronavirus crisis center.

In the past two days, the growth rate did not exceed 0.9%.

Moscow confirmed 5,105 new coronavirus cases. Some 3,764 COVID-19 cases were registered in St. Petersburg, 1,608 in the Moscow Region, 503 in the Nizhny Novgorod Region, 406 in the Sverldovsk Region and 395 in the Pskov Region.

Currently, 549,706 people are ill in Russia.

As many as 29,235 coronavirus recoveries were recorded in Russia in the past day. New recoveries exceeded daily cases for the first time since December 9.

The total number of coronavirus recoveries has reached 2,525,418. According to the crisis center, 80.6% of coronavirus patients have recovered in Russia.

The number of coronavirus-related fatalities in Russia went up by 599 in the past 24 hours, compared to 562 on the previous day, taking the total to 56,426.

​Videos from Nagorno-Karabakh conflict prompt accusations of war crimes

Washington Post
Dec 25 2020
 
 
Videos from Nagorno-Karabakh conflict prompt accusations of war crimes
 
By Liz Cookman
Dec. 25, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. UTC
 
YEREVAN, Armenia — Yuri Asryan lived alone on his small farm in a village in southern Nagorno-Karabakh. The 82-year-old was a quiet, well-liked man, locals told an Armenian lawyer who documented Asryan's death after videos surfaced depicting atrocities in the conflict over this disputed region in the Caucasus.
 
The farmer did not flee the village, Azokh, when Azerbaijani forces swept in to seize it from ethnic Armenian control during the recent six-week outbreak of fighting. His last moments are shown in a video that surfaced on a Telegram channel this month: He is held down by men in uniforms resembling those worn by Azerbaijani troops, one of whom saws into Asryan’s neck with a knife in an apparent decapitation.
 
He has one surviving sibling, his sister, Maria, 80, who used to visit him every summer.
 
Human rights groups say hundreds of videos showing atrocities by troops on both sides have been posted online in the month since a cease-fire deal halted the fighting over Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave within Azerbaijan’s borders but under ethnic Armenian control.
 
Amnesty International has verified 22 videos but stressed that they are not representative of the hundreds circulating on social media. Among the crimes, the organization identified two beheadings of Armenians and an execution of an Azerbaijani border guard.
 
The hostility between Azerbaijan and Armenia goes back decades, festering during the Soviet era and erupting into a separatist war in the late 1980s that ended with Armenia gaining control of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding regions. Decades of negotiations have failed to resolve the conflict.
 
Why Nagorno-Karabakh has pitted Armenia and Azerbaijan for decades
 
After heavy fighting broke out in late September, Azerbaijan regained the seven regions and part of southern Nagorno-Karabakh. Russian peacekeepers have been deployed under the cease-fire deal.
 
The videos underscore the enduring animosity that rekindled the recent six-week conflict, fueled by nationalist rhetoric, disinformation and propaganda — all amplified on social media.
 
One video depicts Genadi Petrosyan, 69, a villager from Madatashen, being beheaded by what appeared to be Azerbaijani soldiers. The video is filmed by someone standing over Petrosyan as he lies on the ground. A kneeling, helmeted soldier decapitates him with a knife. The killer’s face is away from the camera. Another video shows Petrosyan’s head placed on the carcass of a pig.
 
Like Asryan, he lived alone. He was unmarried and had no children. His only brother lives in Ukraine, according to Armenian lawyer Siranush Sahakyan.
 
Sahakyan identified the two men from the flood of videos depicting extrajudicial killings, beatings and other mistreatment of prisoners, and desecration of bodies, many of which have surfaced on Telegram channels since the cease-fire. According to her, more than 60 videos show violations of the rights of Armenians.
 
She said that Petrosyan’s village was evacuated the day before the Azerbaijani forces entered but that he tried to return and was captured.
 
In another video, the bodies of 19 unidentified soldiers, four with their hands bound, are displayed with their trousers pulled down. It is not clear how they were killed.
 
Other videos appear to show Azerbaijani troops beating and kicking captured Armenian soldiers. Azerbaijan has charged four of its soldiers with committing an insulting act on a grave or a corpse, after what authorities said were intensive investigations of the videos.
 
Denis Krivosheev, Amnesty’s research director for Europe and Central Asia, accused both sides of “depravity and lack of humanity” showing a “deliberate intention to cause ultimate harm and humiliation to victims.”
 
In Nagorno-Karabakh peace deal, Russia’s Putin claims a strategic win. But risks are attached.
 
Sam Dubberley, head of Amnesty’s Citizen Evidence Lab, which has been working to verify the videos, said that although a large number of videos had come to light, it had been able to verify the authenticity of only 22 so far, including the two cases of decapitation, other executions, the mistreatment of captives and the desecration of bodies from both sides.
 
Dubberley said it had been difficult to geolocate the videos because little recognizable terrain is visible. Amnesty instead consulted a forensic pathologist, who ran technical tests that showed that the videos had not been digitally manipulated and confirmed that the actions shown in the beheading videos were “consistent with decapitation.”
 
They also found the uniforms, flags and language to be consistent with what the videos claimed to show, down to the patches on Azerbaijani troops’ jackets that display their blood groups.
 
According to Amnesty, 11 videos it has verified show violations by Armenian forces, including cutting the ears of dead Azerbaijani soldiers, as well as seven violations by Azerbaijani forces.
 
The office of Azerbaijan’s prosecutor general, Kamran Aliyev, said in a statement that the acts seen in the videos were “unacceptable and contradict the mentality of the Azerbaijani people” and that perpetrators will be prosecuted.
 
Aliyev said earlier that his office was conducting an investigation into the inhumane treatment of both Azerbaijani and Armenian forces as well as the footage shared online, Agence France-Presse reported.
 
“There are many fake videos. But we must say frankly that there also are videos which could be authentic. . . . Azerbaijan is a law-based state and we are reacting to such facts,” he said.
 
Dubberley said Amnesty was unable to confirm the nationalities of many people in the videos.
 
Sahakyan, the lawyer, cited videos showing eight ethnic Armenian civilians being taken prisoner, six of whom were mistreated, including beatings with metal rods. She said that in some cases, the videos were sent to the family members of soldiers using their own phones or via Facebook.
 
“These videos are shared to terrorize people and gain a psychological advantage. The main motive is ethnicity,” she said.
 
Armine Abrahamyan, 37, a university research head who lives in Yerevan, spotted her three paternal cousins in an Azerbaijani video on Nov. 15, four days after they disappeared.
 
Brothers Mkhitar Abrahamyan, 42, and Khachik Abrahamyan, 28, and cousin Artashes Safaryan, 25, who has an intellectual disability — all civilians — had driven to Nagorno-Karabakh to get winter clothes for one of their wives, who is originally from the enclave. They set off two days after the cease-fire deal was signed.
 
They are thought to have been kidnapped on the road leading from Armenia to Stepanakert, the region’s administrative hub. The video shows the three, as well as another man thought to be a taxi driver, in the back of a van being ordered to recite phrases in Russian.
 
“Karabakh is Azerbaijani,” they are forced to say, as well as being told to recite phrases abusing Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Russian is widely spoken in both countries.
 
The men have not been returned, but officials have told the family that they are alive.
 
Human Rights Watch has urged Azerbaijani forces to observe the Geneva Conventions, which states that prisoners of war should not be subjected to violence or intimidation. It said this month that it was investigating videos on social media purporting to show abuse of Azerbaijani prisoners. It said Armenia is also holding some Azerbaijani prisoners and at least three foreign mercenaries.
 
The rights group has also accused both sides of potential war crimes over the use of banned cluster munitions and indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian populations.