Armenia: Armenia's crimes against Azerbaijanis, characterized as cultural genocide, i.e., 'culturocide,' are not limited only to the period of war, Tural Ganjaliyev, a member of the Milli Majlis (Azerbaijani Parliament), said in a statement to APA.

According to Azeri-Press News Agency, the MP emphasized that this policy has been ongoing for many years, marked by the destruction of the cultural heritage of Azerbaijanis in both the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, such as Karabakh and Eastern Zangezur, and in present-day Armenia. The erasure of Azerbaijani cultural traces has become a central component of Armenia's ideological line. Despite the end of the war and the positive atmosphere in the post-conflict period with Azerbaijan promoting a peace agenda, Armenia has not apologized or taken responsibility for these crimes. An apology and assurances against future occurrences were anticipated, along with concrete steps for restoration. Armenia should have initiated such efforts or involved Azerbaijan in the process.

Ganjaliyev pointed out the absence of these steps and the continuation of cultural genocide against Azerbaijanis. He cited the example of the Blue Mosque in Yerevan, which is presented as belonging to another culture rather than Azerbaijani, indicating ongoing distortion and appropriation of cultural heritage. He stressed that Armenia's policy should be seen as a crime against humanity, world cultural heritage, and civilization. International law, including the 1954 Hague Convention, recognizes the destruction of cultural heritage as a crime against universal values. Despite this, Armenians have engaged in falsifying Azerbaijani culture and history and erasing traces of ancient civilizations, such as the appropriation of Albanian temples and Armenization of ancient Christian heritage. No apology or corrective action has been taken.

The MP highlighted that Armenia's policy targets not only Azerbaijani, Turkic, and Muslim heritage but also Azerbaijan's ancient Christian heritage, demonstrating the destructive and anti-cultural nature of the occupation policy. Unfortunately, no progress has been observed after the war, with revanchist forces supporting this policy and making erasure of Azerbaijani traces an ideological line.

Tural Ganjaliyev expressed concern over the selective approach of some European circles. He noted that forces adopting biased resolutions against Azerbaijan in Belgium and the Netherlands remain silent on the destruction of cultural heritage. The lack of reaction from those defending Christian heritage to the appropriation of Albanian temples raises questions. Such double standards encourage Armenia and revanchist forces. A decisive position is necessary to prevent such threats in the future, as revanchist forces must not regain strength or create new threats. If these forces are willing to erase Azerbaijani cultural heritage, they may commit more serious crimes if given the opportunity. Preventing these tendencies is crucial for regional security and the protection of universal values.