MFA_Report_on_the_occupied_territories_March_2016_1

the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanded the unconditional withdrawal
of the Armenian occupying forces from all the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. 656 OIC urged
all States not to recognize as lawful the situation resulting from the occupation of the territories
of Azerbaijan, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation emerged as a result of
serious breaches of international law and, to this end, encouraged all States to cooperate with a
view to ending aggression against Azerbaijan and occupation of its territories.
In the context of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Non-Aligned Movement,
consisting of 120 Member States, “reaffirmed the importance of the principle of non-use of
force enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, and encouraged the parties to continue to
seek a negotiated settlement of the conflict within the territorial integrity, sovereignty and the
internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan.” 657
Individual and corporate criminal responsibility
As noted above, the ongoing illegal activities in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, such as
the transfer of populations and any efforts necessary for the maintenance and continuation of
settlements, as well as destruction and appropriation of property, are designed as war crimes
under international criminal law, entailing individual criminal responsibility. In order for an
individual to be held criminally responsible for a war crime, it is necessary that he or she seriously
infringed international humanitarian law and that the violation be criminalized by international law.
In other words, it is necessary for the law to attach to breaches of international humanitarian law
the consequence that – in addition to the international responsibility of the State – the criminal
liability of the individual (be s/he a State agent or a private individual) perpetrating that breach
also arises. 658
The relevant provisions enshrined in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I
concerning the “grave breaches” expressly indicate the violations of the rules that, in addition to
the international responsibility of the State party to the conflict, also entail criminal responsibility
of the individual for war crimes. The essential feature of “grave breaches” is that, under the
system envisaged by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, they are subject
to universal jurisdiction. Any States party to the Conventions and the Protocol is authorized
as well as obliged to search for and bring to trial – or, alternatively, extradite to a requesting
State – any person suspected or accused of a grave breach (whatever his or her nationality and
the territory where the grave breach has allegedly been perpetrated) who happens to be on its
territory. 659
Furthermore, the involvement of Armenian and foreign companies in the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan is well-evidenced. They play an important role in funding, facilitating and supporting
the violations of international law by Armenia.
Under most legal systems, corporate representatives are also liable for war crimes. 660 The
traditional means of prosecuting corporate criminality involves indicting representatives of a
company in an individual capacity for crimes perpetrated during the course of business, and
national legal systems are perfectly capable of prosecuting business representatives for unlawful
commercial activities in a conflict zone. The individual liability of corporate representatives
for war crimes is premised on the idea that civilians can be prosecuted for violations of the
international laws applicable during war. A number of courts, both historical and contemporary,
have convicted individual businessmen for various war crimes. 661
656
See Resolutions on Political Affairs Adopted by the 42nd Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers Session of the Joint Vision to
Strengthen Tolerance and Reject Terrorism, OIC/CFM-42/2015/POL/RES/FINAL, 27 – 28 June 2015, .
657
See Final Document, 16th Summit of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran,
26 - 31 August 2012, NAM 2012/Doc.1/Rev.2, .
658
Antonio Cassese and Paola Gaeta, Cassese’s International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, 3rd ed.), p. 67.
659
Ibid., pp. 67 and 72.
660
The Unsettling Business of Settlement Business (Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Resource Centre, May 2015), pp. 75-79.
661
Ibid.
102