The statement reads: "At the outset, regarding the claim on the foundation of the delimitation process, it should be noted that, in line with the statements of both the Prague and Sochi meetings the delimitation is considered to be carried out on the basis of the mutual recognition of territorial integrity and sovereignty. In general, reference to the UN Charter and the Alma-Ata Declaration was made in the context of the mentioned principles. It is well known to the Armenian side that there are no agreement in these and other meetings about the maps on which basis the delimitation will be carried out.
Due to international experience, unlike Armenia, the delimitation process by Azerbaijan with some of its neighbors has been carried out not based on a specially selected map, but on the basis of the analysis and review of all legally significant documents. It is possible to apply this experience with Armenia as well. In this regard, instead of insisting on special reference to some 1975 map, it would be more useful for the Armenian side to start the delimitation work. It should not be forgotten that after the Patriotic War of 2020, it was Armenia that did not respond to the proposal of delimitation of the borders with Armenia for a long time.
Armenia’s accusation against Azerbaijan on aggression towards Armenia, which held the territories of Azerbaijan under the occupation for nearly 30 years, is still occupying 8 villages of Azerbaijan, has not completely withdrawn its forces from the territory of Azerbaijan despite the written and verbal agreements reached, delay to return of 8 villages to Azerbaijan under various pretexts, as well as continuation of military provocations, is completely unfounded.
Everyone remembers Armen Grigoryan, who declared that the Armenian armed forces will be withdrawn from the territory of Azerbaijan in September of last year, contrary to the provisions of the trilateral statement, and therefore with this statement confirmed how Armenia has continued acts of aggression against the territories of Azerbaijan. In this context, Armenia's populist declaration about commitment to the peace process does not fit into any logic.
The allegations by Armen Grigoryan during an interview that Azerbaijan has promised to release 10 of the detained Armenians, in fact, indicates the intention by the Armenian side to cover up cases such as disregard of international humanitarian law and principles of humanism, and Armenia's non-reciprocation of confidence-building measures conducted by Azerbaijan on unconditional immediate return of Armenian detainees, especially more than 10 Armenian soldiers who crossed the border by mistake.
Contrary to paragraph 9 of the trilateral statement, unrestored transport connection between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, prolongation of the process with various excuses, and political polemics instead of ensuring the construction of new transport communications connecting the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and the western regions of Azerbaijan, are clear examples of Armenia's obstruction of the process.
It is ridiculous that an Armenian official, who cannot digest the daily free passage of dosens of Armenian residents through the Lachin border crossing in both directions by following the appropriate procedures, claims that the Lachin road is closed. At the same time, an immediate end to interfere in the issue of reintegration of Armenian residents would be an indication that Armenia respects the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan not in words but in deeds.
Instead of advancing the peace process in the region, the statement by Armenian official that his country has entered a new period of arms buildup, shows that this country has not yet learned from history.
We remind the Armenian side, who wants to evade his obligations by misinterpreting the agreements, that this destructive activity, besides not serving to restore peace in the region, primarily is not in favor of Armenia."