Lawyers question rapid court action against Armenian clergy

By Lia Avagyan

Legal experts say criminal cases brought against senior Armenian Apostolic Church clergy stand out for the unprecedented speed with which a court ruling has been enforced, contrasting sharply with the country’s frequent failure to execute judicial decisions for years.

The comments come after Armenian authorities barred several high-ranking clerics from leaving the country days before an Armenian Apostolic Church bishops’ assembly scheduled to take place in Austria on Feb. 16–19.

On Jan. 31, bishops who are members of the Church’s Supreme Spiritual Council were summoned to the Investigative Committee as defendants. Investigators imposed a travel ban, preventing them from leaving Armenia.

Also read: Armenian authorities impose travel ban on bishops ahead of Austria meeting

The bishops are accused of obstructing the enforcement of a court ruling related to Arman Saroyan, also known as Bishop Gevorg Saroyan, the former head of the Masis diocese. Saroyan was dismissed from his post by order of Catholicos Karekin II and defrocked on Jan. 27. After his removal, Saroyan challenged the decision in court, which ordered his temporary reinstatement as diocesan head. Several bishops from the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin are accused of obstructing that ruling.

Those summoned for questioning include Bishops Makarios, Hovnan, Natan, Haykazun, Mushegh, and Vahan, as well as Father Movses, a priest who serves as secretary of the Supreme Spiritual Council. All were designated as defendants and subjected to a ban on leaving the country.

‘Unprecedented speed’

Ara Ghazaryan, a lawyer and expert on international legal affairs, said that while many court rulings in Armenia remain unenforced for years, the criminal case against the clergy and the execution of the court decision proceeded with unusual speed.

Ghazaryan linked this to what he described as pressure by the executive branch on the Armenian Apostolic Church, aimed at unseating Catholicos Karekin II.

“Because the bishops’ assembly was planned to take place abroad, their exit now had to be blocked,” Ghazaryan said. “From the authorities’ perspective, this creates a reputational problem — it suggests Armenia is not a safe country if such a religious assembly is held outside the country. So there was an urgent need to restrict these people’s movement.”

He said similar criminal cases in his practice had been initiated not primarily to pursue prosecution, but to impose preventive measures limiting individuals’ freedom of movement. “There are issues inside religious organizations where the executive branch has no role,” Ghazaryan added.

Anna Melikyan, a legal expert with the NGO Rights Protection Without Borders, said Armenia lacks judicial precedent for civil courts to adjudicate the status of senior clergy of the Armenian Apostolic Church, noting that such disputes have historically been resolved through internal Church mechanisms.

She described as unprecedented the court decision ordering the Church to temporarily reinstate a cleric as unprecedented, adding that such interim measures are rarely granted even in labor disputes.

“There have been many defrocked clerics, but it seems it never occurred to them that such decisions could be challenged in court,” Melikyan said.

While Armenia’s constitution guarantees freedom of expression for clergy, Melikyan said the principle of separation between church and state requires restraint from the executive branch and prohibits interference in the internal decisions of religious organizations.

“In recent years, criminal justice instruments in Armenia have essentially been abused or used for political purposes,” she said. “The measures applied against six clerics — even if their actions may contain elements of a legal violation — are excessive in terms of reaction, enforcement mechanisms and preventive measures.”

The Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin has described the actions against the clergy as repression, strongly condemning what it called the authorities’ “continued interference in the Church’s internal affairs through blatant violations of the constitution and the law.”