7. Solutions within the Council of Europe
The Council of Europe has various mechanisms in place to address such issues. However, despite the gravity of the situation, none of these measures has been activated, indicating a persistent lack of political will among member states and the organisation’s leadership. This paralysis not only undermines the CoE’s authority but also encourages Azerbaijan’s ongoing defiance.
In early 2020, in response to the crisis in the CoE’s relations with Russia, PACE and the Committee of Ministers introduced a new joint complementary procedure for addressing situations in which a member state “violates its statutory obligations or fails to uphold the standards, fundamental principles, and values of the Council of Europe.”
The procedure includes an “enhanced dialogue” with the concerned state, aimed at addressing the violations. If such a dialogue is ineffective, the mechanism allows for the suspension or expulsion of the member state from the organisation. The Secretary General may initiate a joint complementary procedure, the Committee of Ministers, or the PACE (in the latter case, with a qualified majority of two-thirds of the votes).
To date, the complementary procedure has not been implemented in relation to Azerbaijan. Concerns that its activation could escalate tensions and lead Baku to withdraw from the CoE have discouraged both the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General from initiating the mechanism. Within PACE, the high voting threshold needed to trigger the procedure has been seen as an additional obstacle to its utilisation.
Another option exists in Article 52 of the ECHR, which authorises the Secretary General to request official explanations from a member state concerning its implementation of the Convention. This inquiry mechanism aims to deliver a quick and formal assessment of systemic violations and, if necessary, to refer the matter to the Committee of Ministers for further action. Despite Azerbaijan’s repeated failure to meet its obligations, no such inquiry has been launched.
The hesitation appears to reflect a broader reluctance on the part of the Secretary General to openly confront the government in Baku before all avenues of dialogue have been exhausted.
A further mechanism consists of interstate complaints and infringement proceedings linked to the ECtHR. These procedures enable member states or the Committee of Ministers to initiate proceedings against a state for failing to comply with binding judgments of the Court. They can result in authoritative findings of systemic violations and, in extreme cases, can open the path toward suspension of membership. Azerbaijan has been subject to such proceedings in the past, most notably in the case of Ilgar Mammadov, which concluded in 2020. Yet in the current context – despite Baku’s rejection of the Court’s authority and refusal to implement rulings – no new action has been taken. Here again, the absence of political resolve has left the CoE’s legal instruments unused.