Human rights — Protection of property — Right to respect for private and family life — Right to an effective remedy — Prohibition of discrimination — Applicants forced to flee homes and property in Azerbaijan during Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh — Applicants claiming prevented from returning to homes and property in Armenian occupied territory — Applicants not receiving compensation — Admissibility of applicants’ application — Armenian Government raising preliminary objections — Whether matter already submitted to other international procedure — Whether Court having jurisdiction ratione temporis — Whether applicants failing to exhaust domestic remedies — Whether applicants lacking victim status — Whether Armenia having jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories — Whether matters complained of within Armenia’s jurisdiction — Whether continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether continuing violation of Article 8 of Convention — Whether continuing violation of Article 13 of Convention — Whether separate issue arising under Article 14 of Convention

Jurisdiction — Extraterritorial jurisdiction — Whether Armenia having jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories — Whether Armenia exercising effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories, including district of Lachin — Question of fact — Primary determining factor — Military presence — Other relevant factors — Military, economic and political support — Whether matters complained of within Armenia’s jurisdiction for purposes of Article 1 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Human rights — Property rights — Whether applicants having “possessions” within meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Right to respect for family and private life under Article 8 of Convention — Armenia ratifying Convention on 26 April 2002 — Relevance of earlier events — Applicants forced to flee homes and property after military attack in May 1992 — Whether interference with peaceful enjoyment of applicants’ possessions — Whether justification for interference — Whether proprietary rights remaining valid — Applicants denied access to homes — Whether justified — Whether Armenia responsible for continuing violations of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 and Article 8 of Convention

Human rights — Right to effective remedy — Applicants denied access to property and homes — Lack of compensation — Whether adequate and effective remedy available to applicants — Whether realistic displaced Azerbaijanis afforded effective redress — Whether Armenia responsible for continuing violation of Article 13 of Convention

War and armed conflict — Occupation — Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh — Applicants fleeing district of Lachin in Azerbaijan — Armenia occupying territory — Internally displaced persons — Applicants claiming loss of property and home — Whether applicants having victim status — Evidence — Whether Armenia having jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories, including district of Lachin — Whether Armenia exercising effective control — Military presence — Military, economic and political support — Whether Armenia violating Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 and Articles 8 and 13 of Convention

States — Recognition — Entity proclaimed as State — “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” — “NKR” not recognized by any State or international organization — Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh — Armenia, Azerbaijan and “NKR” signing ceasefire agreement in 1994 — 2001 undertaking to settle conflict peacefully — Whether “NKR” and Armenia integrated — Level of dependency between Armenia and “NKR” — Whether Armenia exercising effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories, including the district of Lachin — Whether matters complained of under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 within jurisdiction of Armenia

International tribunals — Procedure and evidence — Evidence — Ownership of property — Human rights application — Whether flexible standard of proof — Whether account to be taken of practical difficulty for applicants in obtaining evidence