in Russian – https://aga-tribunal.info/icj-heritage-oct-14-15-2021/

Below are few quotes on the topic of cultural heritage from the both sides, Armenia and Azerbaijan from the Hearings at ICJ on October 14-15, 2021.

From Armenia

Source: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/180/180-20211014-ORA-01-00-EN.pdf

Mr. Registrar, p. 14

• Azerbaijan shall protect the right to access and enjoy Armenian historic, cultural and religious heritage, including but not limited to, churches, cathedrals, places of worship, monuments, landmarks, cemeteries and other buildings and artefacts, by inter alia terminating, preventing, prohibiting and punishing their vandalization, destruction or alteration, and allowing Armenians to visit places of worship;
• Azerbaijan shall facilitate, and refrain from placing any impediment on, efforts to protect and preserve Armenian historic, cultural and religious heritage, including but not limited to churches, cathedrals, places of worship, monuments, landmarks, cemeteries and other buildings and artefacts, relevant to the exercise of rights under the CERD;
• Azerbaijan shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of the CERD;

Professor Pierre d’Argent, p. 53

(in French)

32. Face à ces condamnations légitimes, la réponse des autorités de Bakou fut de tenter de changer la réalité. Du révisionnisme historique au négationnisme, il n’y a en effet qu’un pas que l’Azerbaïdjan franchit allègrement par la voix de son ambassadeur à Londres :
    «First and foremost, we need to make it clear that there is no such thing as «Armenian heritage» in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic simply because Armenians never lived there. … Non-existing sites or cemeteries cannot be destroyed.» [160]

Larry Martin, p. 60

19. The urgent need for interim measures to protect Armenian cultural heritage is equally clear. Professor d’Argent showed that Armenia’s rights in dispute include the right to access and enjoy cultural heritage [183]. That right includes the right to have that heritage protected, not destroyed, vandalized or have its character altered. Yet, as Professor d’Argent also showed, that is exactly what Azerbaijan is doing, in conducting an ongoing campaign to erase the evidence of Armenia’s presence from its territory. Just by way of example, revolting as it is, satellite photos make clear that between 12 April and 18 June 2021, a historic Armenian cemetery in the village of Sghnakh was razed to
    make way for the construction of road [184]. Azerbaijan is literally paving over Armenian history.

21. The continued spewing of racist hate speech by President Aliyev and other senior officials only exacerbates this real and present risk. Indeed, by refusing even to acknowledge the existence of Armenian cultural heritage, President Aliyev is directly promoting a climate that is even more conducive to the hate-filled destruction of that heritage

22. In concluding on this point, I note that the Court has in the past ordered provisional measures to protect property and other tangible items from destruction. In the recent Cambodia v. Thailand case, it ordered measures to ensure that “no irreparable damage is caused to . . . property”, including a UNESCO World Heritage site186. And in Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, it did so in circumstances where “assets and resources” in the area of conflict remained vulnerable [187].
    We respectfully submit that the Court should follow these examples and similarly order provisional measures to protect Armenia’s cultural heritage from the very real and very urgent risk of irreparable prejudice.

27. The third category of measures relates to the protection of cultural heritage [190]. We ask that the Court order Azerbaijan to protect Armenians’ right under Article 5 to equal participation in cultural activities, including the right of access to and enjoyment of their cultural heritage, and to take measures to stop its destruction, vandalization and alteration. The connection between those requests and the rights to enjoy one’s cultural heritage as outlined by Professor d’Argent is, again, almost too obvious to state.

Yeghishe Kirakosyan, Oct 15, p. 34

1. Azerbaijan shall protect the right to access and enjoy Armenian historic, cultural and religious heritage, including but not limited to, churches, cathedrals, places of worship, monuments, landmarks, cemeteries and other buildings and artefacts, by inter alia terminating, preventing, prohibiting and punishing their vandalisation, destruction or alteration, and allowing Armenians to visit places of worship;
2. Azerbaijan shall facilitate, and refrain from placing any impediment on, efforts to protect and preserve Armenian historic, cultural and religious heritage, including but not limited to churches, cathedrals, places of worship, monuments, landmarks, cemeteries and other buildings and artefacts, relevant to the exercise of rights under the CERD;
3. Azerbaijan shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of the CERD;

From Azerbaijan

Oct 14. Source: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/180/180-20211014-ORA-02-00-BI.pdf

Professor Vaughan Lowe, p. 21

(c) The fourth request is for an order that Azerbaijan protect the right for Armenians to access and enjoy Armenian historical, cultural and religious heritage sites, including by prohibiting vandalism, destruction and alteration of those sites. Azerbaijan accepts that all persons who are
lawfully present in Azerbaijan, including Armenians, will be able to visit historical, cultural, and religious sites in the territory of Azerbaijan that are safely open to the public, on an equal basis. Azerbaijani law forbids vandalism and destruction of sites of Armenian heritage as it does in
relation to sites of Azerbaijani heritage [39].

p. 22

23. As for prohibiting “any impediment” to work on sites and artefacts of the Armenian heritage — request 5 — in so far as that request goes beyond the obligations under the CERD which Azerbaijan accepts, the request is badly-framed and counter-productive. Some “impediments” to protection and preservation of the historic, cultural and religious heritage are plainly necessary.
    Building controls are necessary to ensure that buildings are safe; restrictions on the renovation and restoration of historic buildings are necessary in order to ensure that the work is appropriate in design
    and quality. It is difficult to believe that Armenia really wishes the Court to order Azerbaijan to stand back from all such supervision and control of restoration and renovation work. Azerbaijan considers
    that its commitment to protect and preserve such sites and artefacts is sufficient and renders this request unnecessary.

p. 23

29. Similarly, there is no plausible claim to CERD rights in respect of the other disputed requests: those for orders regarding independent medical and psychological evaluations, and the removal of any impediment on works on the Armenian heritage.

Ms Catherine Amirfar, pages 43-53

Oct 15, source – https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/180/180-20211015-ORA-02-BI.pdf

Ms Catherine Amirfar, Oct 15, pages 25-30 “Cultural heritage”

Mr. Elnur Mammadov Oct 15, pages 33-34

16. There is yet another fundamental point that Azerbaijan made yesterday on which we heard nothing this morning from Armenia, and that point goes to the very character of the imminent injury
    that might justify an indication of provisional measures — whether the harm to be avoided would be truly irreparable so as to prevent the Court from providing effective relief if it decides the case adversely to the party to be restrained. As we said, the Court’s Judgment in Pulp Mills makes that point [91 – Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Provisional Measures, Order of 13 July 2006, I.C.J. Reports 2006, p. 133, para. 78], and in the context of the disputes over cultural heritage, Azerbaijan recognizes that the Court would have the authority, in the event of a decision adverse to its position, to order the modification or dismantlement of restoration and reconstruction works. Reparation could take the form of restitution. That should be a complete answer to the concerns Armenia has expressed here.