Freedom of Speech on Trial: The Case of Edgar Ghazaryan
25.02.2025
By Tigran Grigoryan
The Armenian government’s treatment of opposition figures continues to raise concerns about freedom of expression and political repression. The latest case involves Edgar Ghazaryan, a former high-ranking official, ex-ambassador to Poland, and now a vocal government critic through his YouTube platform. Ghazaryan faces criminal charges over statements deemed defamatory, with potential consequences that may even include imprisonment.
Ghazaryan has been accused of spreading defamatory information about Constitutional Court judges. Investigators allege that his statements contained “offensive language” and damaging claims, leading to formal charges. As part of the legal proceedings, the court has already partially restricted his right to public speech, including the right to express opinions about judges, investigators, prosecutors, or bailiffs until the case is concluded.
The core of the case revolves around Ghazaryan’s criticisms of a Constitutional Court ruling that assessed the role and significance of Armenia’s Declaration of Independence in the country’s legal framework. According to Ghazaryan, the ruling favored Azerbaijan and Turkey’s narratives—a claim that led to his strong public condemnation of the decision and the officials involved.
Silencing a Government Critic?
Ghazaryan has long been an outspoken critic of the Armenian government, frequently denouncing its policies and actions on social media and in public statements. He is also known for his harsh and controversial statements, sometimes bordering on conspiracy theories. His political activity has sparked debate within civil society about the role of activists in speaking out against prosecutions of controversial figures.
However, several human rights defenders have unequivocally condemned the criminal case, calling it another attack on freedom of speech. Zaruhi Hovhannisyan noted in a Facebook post that the space for free expression in Armenia is shrinking day by day. She added:
“This is yet another attempt to silence people, and such court decisions continue to follow one after another. Just 20 days ago, on February 2, a similar restriction on freedom of speech was imposed on Gharib Babayan, prohibiting him from making public statements. In this information age, how many more people do you plan to silence with such decisions?”
The honorary president of the Yerevan Press Club, Boris Navasardyan, stated that the court’s decision against Edgar Ghazaryan once again proves that both Armenia’s legislation and its interpretation by the courts contain numerous contradictions and uncertainties regarding guarantees of freedom of speech.
Double Standards in Free Speech?
Other critics have highlighted double standards in the state institutions’ approach to free speech. While Ghazaryan faces potential imprisonment for his remarks, various pro-government figures make similar statements without facing legal consequences.
According to human rights advocates, this double standard undermines the credibility of the government’s claims that it does not interfere in criminal cases. They argue that the selective enforcement of speech-related laws is a clear sign of political bias.
As Armenia continues its post-revolutionary democratic trajectory, cases like Ghazaryan’s serve as a litmus test for the government’s commitment to fundamental freedoms. The selective prosecution of opposition figures raises serious concerns about political pluralism, freedom of expression, and rule of law in the country.
This case also highlights a persistent dilemma for civil society and pro-democracy actors: should they be equally vocal in defending democratic principles when individuals known for divisive rhetoric and, at times, disinformation face state persecution? The answer is clear—independent and pro-democracy actors must speak out, even if they strongly disagree with the targeted individuals. Failing to do so risks compromising their integrity. Moreover, turning a blind eye to the weaponization and abuse of the legal system in one case only paves the way for its expansion against other groups and individuals.
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.