“The process of returning prisoners after the end of World War II lasted 10 years.” This was stated days ago from the National Assembly podium by Civil Contract (CC) party Member of Parliamnet (MP) Arpi Davoyan, drawing parallels with the status of Armenian prisoners currently held in Baku.

However, the question arises: why was the comparison made specifically with World War II, when recent decades have produced more current examples from around the world, much more similar to our situation, involving the release of prisoners of war (POWs), hostages, and political prisoners?

As for World War II, the most active period for the return of POWs is generally considered to be 1945–1948. The year 1955 was notable for the meeting between German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, during which Adenauer famously declared that without the return of the remaining prisoners, establishing diplomatic relations between the two countries was impossible. Yet the CC MP failed to mention Adenauer’s statement when speaking from the podium of the National Assembly.

The MP’s statement also has a moral and ethical dimension, as according to experts, such statements cause mental anguish to the relatives of the captives.

NEWS.am spoke about the topic with Anna Melikyan, an expert in humanitarian affairs and representative of the Protection of Rights Without Borders NGO.

Mrs. Melikyan, recently, one of the CC MPs declared in the National Assembly that after World War II, the return of prisoners took 10 years, seemingly in order to justify the inefficiency of the authorities efforts to release thr Armenian prisoners held in Baku. As an expert in humanitarian issues, how do you assess the moral or ethical dimension of such a statement, considering that the families of the captives are also listening?

When speaking about persons deprived of liberty due to an armed conflict, sensitivity must always be exercised, especially by representatives of the authorities, taking into account the vulnerability of both the detained individuals and their families.

First, let me note that the state itself is responsible for individuals participating on its behalf as party to a conflict, especially those who have been captured. I would like to emphasize that the 19 Armenians currently held in Azerbaijan wound up in captivity precisely because of the armed conflict, to which Armenia is considered a party.

How appropriate is the comparison to World War II when, for example, the experience of recent decades shows that POWs, political prisoners, or hostages held by other countries are released much sooner? For instance, the release of Israeli hostages occurred after about two years. We can also bring the example of anorher deal involving political prisoners that took place in 2024 between Russia and the West, as a result of which a large number of hostages were exchanged without being held for 10 years.

Comparing one conflict to another is inappropriate because the circumstances differ, as do the participating sides. Furthermore, a comparison with World War II is particularly out of place, because it was precisely as a result of that war and the issues that arose during it, including those related to prisoners, that the international community realized the importance of defining relevant international obligations for states involved in conflicts regarding the status and repatriation of captives.

I am referring to the four Geneva Conventions adopted in 1949, one of which specifically regulates the treatment of POWs. The Convention clearly stipulates that prisoners of war must be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities. Let me remind you that both Armenia and Azerbaijan are parties to these conventions, as are nearly 200 countries worldwide. Such broad participation in the convention demonstrates that everyone agrees with the principle reflected within it.

Moreover, both the Convention and the practice of warring states show that nations attempt to organize the repatriation of prisoners either during active hostilities or immediately afterward. The expectation embedded in the Convention is that states should include the issue of returning captives in a ceasefire or another equivalent agreement; in the absence of such an agreement, each holding state must immediately draft and execute a repatriation plan.

Furthermore, POWs or detained civilians with health issues must be repatriated as a matter of priority.

In the case of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, the issue of prisoners is not included in the text of the peace agreement, nor is there any other agreement regulating these matters, with the exception of the November 9, 2020 ceasefire statement. Furthermore, taking advantage of this very circumstance, the Azerbaijani authorities have tried Armenians captured after November 9 and have denied them POW status, violating the norms of international humanitarian law.

In your opinion, what factors determine a faster release of prisoners? Is there a general trend in this matter?

The timelines for returning individuals detained within the context of conflicts are directly linked to the intensity of the efforts made by the prisoners' country of citizenship, either by directly negotiating the terms of return with the holding country or by involving mediator states and organizations to expedite the process through them.

The state must utilize every diplomatic platform to secure the return of the Armenians held in Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, in this regard, we observe missed opportunities, such as the meeting that took place in Washington on August 8, 2025, and the developments that followed it.