The Rule of Law or Rule by Law? Armenia’s Deepening Church Crisis

By Tigran Grigoryan

Civilnet

 

On February 14, a criminal case was initiated against Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II. The case centers on allegations of obstructing the enforcement of a court decision to temporarily reinstate Arman (Gevorg) Saroyan as Primate of the Massyatsotn (Masis) Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

On January 10, Catholicos Karekin II removed Bishop Gevorg Saroyan from his position as diocesan head, citing abuse of authority, neglect of duties, and alleged pressure on clergy. Saroyan, who had publicly called for the Catholicos’ resignation, aligning himself with Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, challenged the dismissal in court. On January 16, the Armavir Court of First Instance issued an interim order requiring his temporary reinstatement pending a final ruling.

On January 28, the Supreme Spiritual Council defrocked Saroyan for violating his oath of obedience and committing canonical deviations, reducing him to lay status under the name Arman Saroyan. Prosecutors and investigators claim that subsequent actions by the Catholicos and members of the Supreme Spiritual Council (the Church’s highest permanent advisory body) obstructed compliance with the court’s reinstatement order, allegedly violating Article 507 of the Criminal Code (failure to execute or obstruction of a judicial act by an official).

In late January, Armenia’s Investigative Committee launched criminal proceedings and summoned defendants. Six bishops (members of the Supreme Spiritual Council) and one priest were charged and subjected to travel bans, preventing their participation in the Bishops’ Assembly in Austria (February 16–19). On February 14, the Prosecutor’s Office extended the case to Catholicos Karekin II on the same grounds of obstruction, imposing a travel ban on him just days before the Austria assembly.

The Catholicos refused to testify, and the Mother See condemned the actions as groundless, unlawful, and politically motivated interference in Church affairs.

This is yet another episode in the ongoing confrontation between Prime Minister Pashinyan and the leadership of the Armenian Apostolic Church. It contains the same troubling elements observed in previous stages of this conflict: interference in the Church’s internal affairs and violations of religious autonomy; the use of law enforcement and the judiciary as instruments of political pressure and the advancement of narrow political agendas; and public accusations made without presenting evidence or proper legal substantiation.

In an article written a month ago for the Regional Center for Democracy and Security, Isabella Sargsyan, an expert on freedom of religion or belief, did not comment directly on the Saroyan case. Instead, she examined the broader confrontation between the ruling party and the Church leadership through the lens of international and domestic law, presenting relevant precedents from the European Court of Human Rights.

The case of Fernández-Martínez v. Spain is particularly relevant in this context. It concerned the non-renewal of a priest’s contract and raised questions about the Catholic Church’s internal governance. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that the state must respect the internal decisions of religious organizations and refrain from interfering in their governance. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that religious communities enjoy autonomy under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly with regard to the appointment and management of their clergy.

Sargsyan emphasized that this jurisprudence forms an integral part of Armenian law. In light of this, the court’s decision to reinstate Arman Saroyan appears to contradict the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and to infringe upon the Church’s religious autonomy.

Anna Melikyan, a legal expert at the NGO “Protection of Rights Without Borders,” described the court’s decision as unprecedented, noting that obliging a church to temporarily reinstate a cleric to his position is highly unusual. She pointed out that interim measures of this kind are almost never granted in employment disputes.

The criminal cases initiated against the bishops and the Catholicos are problematic not only because they appear to contradict the above-mentioned ECtHR ruling and interfere in the Church’s internal affairs, but also because many commentators believe that the primary objective was to impose travel bans and obstruct participation in the Bishops’ Assembly in Austria.

Prime Minister Pashinyan himself appeared to allude to this when he described the assembly in Austria as an attempt to move the Catholicosate out of Armenia and stated: “I will not allow the Catholicosate to be moved out of Armenia together with the treasures of Etchmiadzin. If necessary, measures will be taken.” The day after this statement about “taking measures,” the criminal case against the Catholicos was initiated, and a travel ban was imposed on him.

International law expert and attorney Ara Ghazaryan noted that in recent years many judicial acts in Armenia have remained unenforced for years, whereas in this case the initiation of criminal proceedings and the enforcement of the judicial act occurred with unprecedented speed.

Another problematic aspect of the Prime Minister’s statement is that, once again, serious accusations about an intention to move the Catholicosate out of Armenia—officially denied by the Church—were voiced without presenting evidence, seemingly to justify actions that raise concerns regarding fundamental constitutional principles. Such tactics, combined with the weaponization of law enforcement and the judiciary, are incompatible with democratic governance and the rule of law.

Democracy Watch is a joint initiative of CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security.