Archbishop Ajapahyan’s conviction and the politicization of justice in Armenia
07.10.2025
By Tigran Grigoryan and Tatev Ghazaryan
On October 3, Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan was sentenced to two years in prison under the Criminal Code for “making public calls aimed at seizing power, violating territorial integrity, or overthrowing the constitutional order, using publicly displayed works, mass media, or information and communication technologies.”
The charge is based on an interview he gave more than a year ago, in which the cleric spoke about the “need for a coup.” At that time, however, the Prosecutor General’s Office had reviewed the same statements and found no grounds for criminal proceedings. In response to a request from the “Union of Informed Citizens” NGO, the Prosecutor General’s Office wrote on April 30, 2024:
“In accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, it has already been recorded that the circumstances described in your report do not substantiate any act, action, or omission that could reasonably be given an initial legal qualification corresponding to any offense defined by the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia.”
The prosecution now justifies opening the case by claiming that Ajapahyan repeated the same statement in June 2025.
Human rights defender Zaruhi Hovhannisyan refuted this reasoning in an interview with Medialab, saying:
“From a legal standpoint, it is impossible for the same act to be considered non-criminal in one case and criminal in another. A person cannot now be sentenced to imprisonment for an action that was previously not regarded as a crime.”
Similarly, Anna Melikyan, legal expert at the Protection of Rights Without Borders NGO, in written comments to Democracy Watch, pointed to serious legal shortcomings in the case. She noted that although the Archbishop was charged for repeated calls made over a protracted timeline, the Prosecutor’s Office failed to demonstrate that those calls posed any real risk of violence or that any harmful actions followed them. According to Melikyan, this absence of demonstrable harm undermines the case’s legal foundation.
Both Melikyan and Hovhannisyan emphasized the disproportionate nature of the verdict. Melikyan pointed out that, under Armenian law, custodial sentences should be a last resort, applied only when less restrictive measures are insufficient. The Criminal Code provides for a range of alternative sanctions – such as fines or community service – but the court nevertheless opted for imprisonment. She also drew attention to two other similar cases in which defendants charged under the same article received non-custodial sentences – a fine and community service, respectively – and whose trials lasted 1.5 and 3 years, reflecting normal timelines in the Armenian judicial system. By contrast, Archbishop Ajapahyan’s trial concluded in less than two months, an unusually expedited process that further raises concerns about the fairness and objectivity of the proceedings.
Zaruhi Hovhannisyan also stressed that in comparable cases in the past, imprisonment has never been applied as a punishment. Therefore, she argued, Ajapahyan was subjected to a harsher, discriminatory sentence, imposed under stricter conditions, which suggests political persecution. Hovhannisyan also noted that Ajapahyan’s case meets the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) definition of a political prisoner.
Notably, even some members of Armenia’s civil society who are generally sympathetic to the government have expressed concern about the disproportionate nature of the ruling.
The politicization of justice and its consequences
In a broader context, it is clear that the criminal prosecution of Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan coincided with a period of confrontation between the government and the Armenian Apostolic Church. This timing helps explain why the same statement – initially deemed non-criminal by the Prosecutor General – later became the basis for criminal prosecution and imprisonment.
This political context also undermines the argument that the verdict was the result of an independent judicial process. Instead, it points to a broader pattern: the use of law enforcement and the judiciary by the authorities for domestic political purposes – a practice that is increasingly becoming normalized in Armenia.
The case exposes serious inconsistencies in the application of justice and highlights the deepening politicization of the judiciary. Such developments are among the clearest indicators of democratic backsliding in the country.
Equally concerning is the lack of international reaction to this growing politicization and instrumentalization of law enforcement and the judiciary for domestic political purposes. International cooperation and support for the Armenian government should be tied to clear democratic conditionalities to prevent the country from following the path of countries like Hungary and Georgia. The experience of the past decades has shown that when major international actors promoting democracy and institutional reform turn a blind eye to the erosion of the rule of law and other violations of democratic norms, it almost inevitably paves the way for democratic regression and a slide back into authoritarianism.
Democracy Watch is a joint initiative of CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security.
This material has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.