Hybrid Threats vs. Freedom of Expression: Examining the Prosecution of Gharib Babayan
18.02.2025
By Tigran Grigoryan
On February 1, the Armenian media landscape was shaken by the news that a 70-year-old professor from Nagorno-Karabakh, Gharib Babayan, who had recently posted a video on his Facebook page showing a group of ethnic Azerbaijanis from Iran singing a song titled “Karabakh”, was under investigation. In his post, Babayan expressed outrage over the inaction of law enforcement agencies. Babayan wrote:
“Disgrace. A group of Azerbaijanis in the central square of Yerevan singing the Karabakh song in Azerbaijani. Where is our brave police? Or can they only beat the mothers of our fallen soldiers in Yerablur?
Can you imagine what would happen in Baku if the same number of young Armenians sang in Armenian, even a non-patriotic song? What is happening in Armenia, people? What have these corrupt criminals in power turned our country into, that Azerbaijanis behave so audaciously and impudently in the center of Yerevan?
Why are Turks and Azerbaijanis freely visiting Armenia and behaving so insolently—one day showing the Grey Wolves symbol in Tsitsernakaberd, and the next day singing the Karabakh song in their language in the center of Yerevan?
Armenians in Armenia, what is happening to you, why are you silent, why are you tolerating all the disgraceful actions of these treacherous and sold-out authorities against you? Until when will you tolerate and stay silent? Disgrace.”
After that post, a criminal case was opened against Gharib Babayan under Article 329, Part 2, Point 3 of the Criminal Code (public speech aimed at inciting hatred, discrimination, intolerance, or hostility, as well as distributing materials or objects for this purpose).
Notably, in its official statement on the case, the Investigative Committee accused Babayan of “spreading materials and making public speeches aimed at inciting and promoting hatred, intolerance, and hostility toward the authorities of the Republic of Armenia and the officers of the Armenian police based on political and other views, as well as personal and social circumstances.”
The same day, a request was made for Babayan’s arrest, but the judge ultimately decided to impose administrative oversight instead, limiting Babayan’s right to freely express his views in public.
The case was met with unanimous criticism from Armenia’s human rights community. Human rights advocate Araks Melkonyan condemned the prosecution as a disgrace and an act of lawlessness, while human rights defender Zaruhi Hovhannisyan described it as an obvious suppression of free speech.
It is evident that while Babayan’s rhetoric was controversial, the criminal case against him is a dangerous overreach. The Armenian government’s response raises troubling concerns about the suppression of speech and the weaponization of vaguely defined legal provisions to silence dissent.
This criminal case also reflects the Armenian government’s broader perceptions about the need to combat hybrid threats—an interpretation confirmed by Prime Minister Pashinyan himself in a recent press conference. Pashinyan claimed that the publication of the video featuring the performance of the Azerbaijani song was part of a hybrid operation intended to damage Armenia’s relations with Iran.
A recent report by Armenia’s newly established Foreign Intelligence Service identified information and hybrid threats as major risks to the country’s security in 2025. However, the fight against such threats raises serious concerns about potential conflicts with fundamental rights, particularly freedom of expression. Suppressing speech or prosecuting individuals under vague or overly broad legal provisions can set a dangerous precedent, stifling dissent and eroding democratic principles.
Moreover, if the government abuses or misapplies the law in the name of countering hybrid threats, it risks amplifying the very dangers it seeks to combat. Excessive legal actions can fuel distrust, deepen societal divisions, and even play into the hands of external actors seeking to destabilize Armenia from within. The danger is that any government critic, journalist, or activist could be prosecuted under the pretext of fighting hybrid threats, turning national security concerns into a tool for silencing opposition.
A measured and rights-respecting approach is crucial to ensuring that efforts to counter hybrid threats do not come at the expense of democratic freedoms. Otherwise, the very institutions meant to protect the country from external manipulation may end up undermining its democracy from within.
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.