imagine You have dedicated your life to the preservation of cultural heritage. You advise governments. Participate in international programs. And one day you come to Armenia. You are Jyoti Hosagrahar. Deputy Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Center. In Yerevan, in Matenadaran, a journalist asks you about the destruction of Armenian churches in Artsakh. You answer that you are not aware of such cases. stunning. After the departure of the Armenian population from your country in 2023, access to its churches, monasteries and cemeteries remains limited. For Armenia, it is a matter of preserving historical memory. For UNESCO it is a matter of professional competence. Perhaps the answer is dictated by diplomatic caution. Maybe because of the lack of verified data. But shouldn't a UNESCO representative, coming to Armenia, be prepared for such a question? In 2006, UNESCO included Kosovo's Orthodox monuments on its list of World Heritage in Danger. The Armenian monuments of Artsakh have a different legal status. But does this mean that international mechanisms for their protection should remain inaccessible? There are questions for Azerbaijan - about the safety of monuments and access to experts. UNESCO - on monitoring. To the Armenian government - for the results of the diplomatic work. And the main question: if the UNESCO representative has no information about the fate of the Armenian heritage of Artsakh, why does the answer become "I am not aware", and not an explanation of how to obtain this information? Or do we still have to figure out what she meant? Ruben Pashinyan.

imagine You have dedicated your life to the preservation of cultural heritage. You advise governments. Participate in international programs. And one day you come to Armenia. You are Jyoti Hosagrahar. Deputy Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Center. In Yerevan, in Matenadaran, a journalist asks you about the destruction of Armenian churches in Artsakh. You answer that you are not aware of such cases. stunning. After the departure of the Armenian population from your country in 2023, access to its churches, monasteries and cemeteries remains limited. For Armenia, it is a matter of preserving historical memory. For UNESCO it is a matter of professional competence. Perhaps the answer is dictated by diplomatic caution. Maybe because of the lack of verified data. But shouldn't a UNESCO representative, coming to Armenia, be prepared for such a question? In 2006, UNESCO included Kosovo's Orthodox monuments on its list of World Heritage in Danger. The Armenian monuments of Artsakh have a different legal status. But does this mean that international mechanisms for their protection should remain inaccessible? There are questions for Azerbaijan - about the safety of monuments and access to experts. UNESCO - on monitoring. To the Armenian government - for the results of the diplomatic work. And the main question: if the UNESCO representative has no information about the fate of the Armenian heritage of Artsakh, why does the answer become "I am not aware", and not an explanation of how to obtain this information? Or do we still have to figure out what she meant? Ruben Pashinyan.