thoroughly studied and properly recorded due to the efforts of the

Ad Hoc Investigation Committee, take the special place in the chain

of bloodthirsty and malign aggression the Azerbaijani nation became

subject to times and again, the violence that was not given due legal

assessment for quite a lengthy period of time.

As it may be concluded from the records, a small team of ex-

perts led by A.F.Novatsky started investigation of the events in Guba

in early December 1918. Due to excellent arrangement of the prepa-

ration phase, very cooperative local authorities and enormous per-

sonal input of Novatski and his assistants the investigation team suc-

ceeded in collecting and compiling 3 volumes of records, 451 pages

in total within just a month. During this period, Novatski personally

interviewed 20 residents of Guba, 30 rural community elders of Guba

Uyezd, and David Ghelovani as one of the main witnesses for the

prosecution. The investigation team succeeded in collecting hun-

dreds of other pieces of evidence, such as statements of damages,

lists of killed and murdered residents, etc.

All together, these records provide a broad context of the tragic

events of 1918 in Guba and create a comprehensive view of the scope

of detriment inflicted to residents of Guba and its environs, both in

terms of human loss and property damage.

Meanwhile, a number of tasks identified by the Commission ap-

peared unattainable. E.g., on the very first day of the work, A.F.Novatski

made various types of requests, such as family names of potential

Muslim witnesses among Guba’s permanent residents, as well as the

list of persons affected, wounded or maimed as a result of the Arme-

nian gangs’ attack on Guba.

As it appears from the records, the Commission was planning

to get witness testimonies of ethnic groups’ representatives not in-

volved in violence against the Muslim population and could provide

information regarding the Armenian gangs’ foray on Guba, the town’s

devastation and violence towards the population. However absence

of such a group of witnesses clearly indicates that the Commission

was short of accomplishing this goal. Response by one of the local

police officers concerning “absence of adherents of different creed in

Section 1 at the moment” (186) is far from being an exhaustive expla-

nation of this issue.

Another open-ended question is related to the absence of

Events of 1918 in Guba in the Context of Plans for Mass Extermination

of Azerbaijan’s Muslim Population