Armenian MFA spokesperson responds to Azerbaijani counterpart 

ArmInfo. The decision of the Constitutional Court very clearly and directly states that in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia, adopted in 1990, only those provisions that are literally expressed in the articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia have constitutional force. 

Thus, the press secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of  Armenia Ani Badalyan commented on the statements of the Azerbaijani  side that "the decision adopted by the Constitutional Court of the  Republic of Armenia on the Regulations of the joint activities of the  commissions for demarcation of the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan  further emphasizes the territorial demands on the Azerbaijani side."  According to her, therefore, what is not written in the text  following the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of  Armenia, that is, in the articles of the Constitution, cannot be  attributed to the Constitution, and there is no room for any other  interpretation, especially since the High Court stated that a  different position was never enshrined in its previously adopted  decisions. "Thus, the basic principles of Armenian statehood and the  national goals mentioned in the preamble of the RA Constitution are  those that are expressed in the subsequent text of the RA  Constitution, and there is nothing there that could be interpreted as  a territorial claim against any country," Badalyan assured.

Touching upon Baku's statements that other legal acts of the Republic  of Armenia also contain territorial claims against Azerbaijan, the  representative of the Armenian Foreign Ministry recalled that  official Yerevan has repeatedly addressed this issue at the highest  and highest levels. "Part 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution of the  Republic of Armenia stipulates that ratified international treaties  have a higher legal force than the domestic legislation of the  Republic. The wording of this article is more specifically as  follows: "In case of contradiction between international treaties  ratified by the Republic of Armenia and the norms of laws, the norms  of international treaties shall apply." In the agreed part of the  draft treaty "On the establishment of peace and interstate relations  between Armenia and Azerbaijan" there is an article which states that  the parties do not have territorial claims against each other and  undertake not to make such claims in the future. There is also an  article stating that neither party can refer to its domestic  legislation to impede the implementation of the Peace Treaty. That  is, when the peace treaty is signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan,  receives a conclusion from the Constitutional Court on its compliance  with the Constitution and is ratified in the National Assembly of the  Republic of Armenia, it will acquire a higher legal force than any  domestic law. Therefore, the signing of a peace treaty will dispel  all concerns of both Armenia and Azerbaijan regarding the various  legislative acts of the two countries, if any," she said.

At the same time, Badalyan called Baku's assertion that Armenia's  commitment to the Alma-Ata Declaration does not mean that it has no  territorial claims against Azerbaijan absolutely inappropriate, since  the Alma-Ata Declaration has nothing to do with the issue of where  the borders of the CIS member countries are and what territories  belong to these countries. "This comment is absolutely inappropriate,  since the Alma-Ata Declaration of December 21, 1991 clearly states  that the parties recognize each other's territorial integrity and the  inviolability of existing borders. Consequently, the countries that  signed the Alma-Ata Declaration recognized the de jure integrity of  the territories of the Soviet republics at the time of the collapse  of the USSR and the de jure inter-republican administrative borders  that existed at that time as state borders. And these borders are  known, and maps showing these borders are available in both Armenia  and Azerbaijan. By the way, the wording of the Peace Treaty, which  states that the parties undertake not to make territorial claims  against each other in the future, seems to negate Azerbaijan's claims  that Armenia has a "backup option" for making territorial claims  against Azerbaijan. And the interpretation of the Alma- Ata  Declaration, which is contained in the wording of the press secretary  of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, may in fact mean  that Azerbaijan itself is making territorial claims against Armenia,  and simply wants to create a smokescreen to hide this with  accusations against Armenia," the press secretary of the Armenian  Foreign Ministry added in a conversation with Armenpress.