Judges Yusuf and Koroma consider that Azerbaijan’s assurances should have led to the dismissal of the provisional measures request

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

13-2 majority issues additional provisional measures, including a reporting requirement

Assurances by Azerbaijan mitigate the imminent risk or irreparable harm, but do not remove this risk entirely

Individuals being forced to leave their homes without the possibility of return leads to finding that measures are urgently necessary to prevent irreparable harm

Court sees link between plausible rights and measures directing Azerbaijan to prevent the displacement or ethnic Armenians, allow their safe return, and preserve civil registers

Armenia has identified plausible rights under CERD for ethnic Armenians not to be forced to flee their place of residence and to be guaranteed safe return

No need to revisit prima facie jurisdiction, given earlier provisional measures rulings

Recent military conflict qualifies as “new circumstances” that may justify additional provisional measures

Background: Armenia files fifth request for provisional measures in aftermath of September 2023 military operation by Azerbaijan

Armenia is ordered to pay 438,000 USD to Mr. Khudyan, including contingency fee

Committee annuls tribunal’s findings on jurisdiction ratione personae over Mr. Khudyan, as well as the costs award in its entirety

Committee rejects Armenia’s allegation that partial annulment would serve no purpose in this case

The manifest excess of powers could have significantly affected the award’s outcome

The fact that the question of whether Mr. Khudyan had retained ASSR citizenship after emigrating to the USA was not subject to detailed discussions before the tribunal is irrelevant

Committee finds that the excess of power was manifest

Tribunal did not otherwise address the critical question of whether Mr. Khudyan was a citizen of the ASSR after he emigrated to the USA, meaning that an excess of powers occurred

Statement that something is “common ground” requires a “positive acceptance” – which did not occur here

Committee focuses on tribunal’s statement that it was “common ground” between the parties that Mr. Khudyan continued to be a citizen of both Soviet Armenia and the USSR between his emigration to the USA and Armenia’s declaration of independence

A tribunal may manifestly exceed its powers by failing to uphold jurisdiction, but only if the decision is clearly “not tenable”; committee has a certain amount of discretion

Manifest excess of powers can in principle only be based on the record that was put before the tribunal; committee thus excludes letter that post-dates the award, but still finds it “disturbing”

Annulment is not an appeal

Application for partial annulment cannot be broadened during the proceedings

Committee decides to continue the award’s stay of enforcement on the condition that Mr. Khudyan must place the monies owed under the costs award into escrow; claimant agrees

Background: One of two original claimants files for partial annulment, challenging the award’s finding that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction based on Mr. Khudyan’s nationality

Azerbaijan’s request for interim measures regarding landmines and booby traps is unanimously rejected

Archives