Armenia’s Human Rights Landscape Ahead of 2026 Elections
As Armenia approaches its parliamentary elections to be held on 7 June of the current year, the state of human rights has emerged as a central issue shaping public debate and democratic credibility. The pre-election period is unfolding amid political polarization, unresolved security concerns, and ongoing institutional reforms, all of which place renewed pressure on the country’s human rights framework. How authorities, political actors, and state institutions respond to these challenges will be critical in determining whether the electoral process meets domestic and international democratic standards.
While Armenia has made notable commitments to democratic governance and the rule of law in recent years, persistent concerns remain regarding freedom of expression, judicial independence, the protection of civil society, and the treatment of vulnerable groups. Reports from local and international observers point to both progress and regression, highlighting a complex landscape in which reforms coexist with systemic shortcomings.
Armenia Sees Gains, But Rights Challenges Remain: Watchdogs
According to Freedom House Country Report 2025, Armenia remains classified as “partly free,” a status that reflects both meaningful political competition and enduring weaknesses. Elections are generally competitive, and opposition parties are able to operate, marking a clear improvement from the pre-2018 period. Media and civil society enjoy more space than in much of the region, and public criticism of the government is common. At the same time, concerns persist over the misuse of administrative resources, uneven electoral conditions, and a judiciary that struggles to function as an independent check on executive power. These shortcomings continue to undermine public trust in institutions that are central to a credible electoral process.
Human Rights Watch World Report 2026 on Armenia found it’s human rights record to be uneven, noting that while authorities pursued anti-corruption and rule-of-law reforms, serious rights concerns persist, including expanded state surveillance, continued restrictions on media freedom, and inadequate protections for persons with disabilities and LGBT people. Investigations into allegations of police abuse remain ineffective, judicial independence is weak, and excessive use of pre-trial detention continues to undermine fair criminal justice. The government also struggled to provide adequate social protection for more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh, leaving many without reliable housing support. On the positive side, Armenia adopted the EU Integration Act, formalizing its ambition to align domestic law with EU standards, and scaled back an earlier, more intrusive draft of police surveillance legislation, reducing some privacy risks. However, HRW highlighted that the final surveillance law still lacked sufficient safeguards and that comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation is still absent, reflecting an ongoing gap between legislative reform and effective rights protections.
Against this backdrop, the Human Rights House Foundation points to a more subtle but no less significant challenge: the growing absence of human rights from political debate itself. As the 2026 elections approach, rights-based agendas are largely overshadowed by security concerns, geopolitical anxieties, and economic pressures. Civil society organizations remain active, but many operate in an atmosphere of public fatigue, polarization, and self-censorship, compounded by funding constraints and disinformation targeting NGOs. While activists are increasingly seeking to reconnect with broader social concerns, their influence on party platforms and electoral discourse remains limited.
Taken together, these assessments suggest that Armenia enters the pre-election period with stronger formal freedoms and legal commitments than in the past, but without fully addressing the systemic issues that shape how those freedoms are exercised. The extent to which recent improvements can be consolidated — and longstanding problems meaningfully tackled — may prove decisive for both the quality of the 2026 elections and the credibility of Armenia’s democratic trajectory.
Experts and Politicians Point to Reforms, Warn of Rights Gaps Ahead of Vote
For this article, we sought the views of local politicians and human rights experts, whose assessments reflect both cautious recognition of recent reforms and persistent concern over unresolved systemic challenges ahead of the 2026 elections.
In a conversation with us, political scientist, founder and the director of the Armenian Institute of International and Security Affairs (AIISA) and the former chairman of the Public Council of Armenia, Styopa Safaryan thinks that, overall, the state of human rights protection in Armenia is not alarming, but it would not be correct to say that there are no problems. “The fact is that the country does not have a systemic problem of total human rights violations, which we had before 2018, particularly regarding freedom of speech, political, and civil liberties: so-called limits have been set by the state, which, if exceeded, met with disproportionate force in the case of protest actions, or, in a more systematic way, orders have been issued to restrict those rights. Meanwhile, from 2018 to the present, even during the post-war period—which was extremely, even surprisingly, challenging given the country’s fragile and unstable situation—the authorities, to their credit, did not resort to harsh restrictions and, by and large, remained committed to the principles of democracy. At that time, protests took place by various opposition movements, and there may have been issues with the proportionality of force used, but overall, it was clear that the situation was not what we had before 2018. These could have been due to limited capabilities or inexperience in those particular situations, especially given that the police were newly formed, and the system itself was newly implemented”, Safaryan alludes.
Unlike Styopa Safaryan, our second interviewee, Larisa Alaverdyan—Armenia’s first Human Rights Defender (2004–2006), Executive Director of the NGO ‘Against Legal Arbitrariness,’ and an expert in international law—believes that during 2025, key rights in Armenia, including freedom of speech, expression, and conscience, were violated at the governmental level. “A strange thing happened, for example, for an opinion expressed on a social network several years ago, in 2025 that person was held accountable for it. In terms of freedom of conscience, we can even note that not only were the norms of international treaties violated, but the constitutional provisions related to the national status of the Armenian Apostolic Church were also directly infringed. I insist that the issue is not about individuals, but about the institution per se, and this has been happening since 2018—in all these years, in various ways, apparently by compiling dossiers on the most vulnerable individuals—and today we can already say with certainty that this is an organized attack on the Armenian Apostolic Church. Without any legal basis, in fact, high-ranking clergy of the church are currently deprived of their freedom, asserts Larisa Alaverdyan.
The State of Media Freedom
Speaking on media freedom, Styopa Safaryan emphasizes that there is generally no problem in the country today. On the contrary, certain regulations have been introduced that have effectively blocked the channels used to spread hybrid threats, such as creating fake news through false accounts and distributing it via media pages.
“These changes have been largely positive. Despite everything, Armenia continues to rank relatively high in terms of internet freedom and has improved its position in recent years. Therefore, in many cases, there is public concern about whether such a level of freedom is appropriate given the current security risks and challenges, because in many instances, fake news and misinformation are now being spread through pages of media outlets registered abroad. In other words, in terms of press and media freedoms, there is absolutely no large-scale systemic problem: media outlets are not being shut down, and there are no attacks on the media. Even during protests, one can be amazed by the aggressiveness of the same opposition journalists, to whom harsh answers are generally not given, leaving aside individual cases when a community leader, having low communication skills with the press, can afford to respond rudely, but in a large sense it is a fact that the system is clearly quite liberal”, the political scientist is convinced.
Meanwhile, Larisa Alaverdyan believes that Armenia is experiencing an unprecedented situation in terms of freedom of expression. “For years, I have participated in various critical gatherings and have personally expressed criticism—under all governments, but what we are facing now is not isolated incidents; rather, it is a complete change in politics, which, in fact, can be summed up in one phrase: it is a clear attack on democracy”. In this regard, Larisa Alaverdyan expresses amazement that European institutions—which were once important and authoritative for us, such as the European Union and the Council of Europe—have not only refrained from making any critical statements or calls for restraint regarding what is happening, but, on the contrary, at various levels, they have issued assessments that the current Armenian government is pursuing a democratic policy.
“It is a great sorrow for me, because in the Republic of Armenia, civil society organizations and media outlets have put considerable effort into achieving gains—albeit not always visible—in this field. And, in fact, we are seeing that the current government is destroying all institutions entirely, with all branches of power being captured by the executive authority. Fundamental freedoms are being violated not through isolated incidents, but rather such a policy has been adopted, and this is done demonstratively and presented as a state achievement” the former Human Rights Defender claims.
The Judicial System
According to Styopa Safaryan, ahead of the elections, the judicial system in Armenia continues to be problematic. “I say this also having several cases in court. Being a public figure and a representative of civil society myself, I try to seek justice through the judicial process in cases of insult and defamation directed at me. But it has become evident that there are still judges in the judicial system who, due to the influence of former authorities or their own sympathies toward them, can simply issue decisions motivated by political reasons, effectively punishing the victims of the act for their political views. This indicates that, in many cases, public figures—and people in general—are left unprotected. Alongside this, there are also complaints from opposition circles, and a very comprehensive discourse about how the authorities supposedly have their ‘telephone justice’ and their own judges. But in all these cases, our Institute—through its judicial reform program—closely monitors the situation, and it becomes clear that in all instances we are dealing with evidence obtained from large-scale planned crimes, which of course must be examined in court. Therefore, I am forced to explain these criticisms from opposition figures against the judiciary as being in the context of ‘the best defense is a good offense,’ when, having no other arguments, they begin to accuse the judiciary of alleged political persecution, for example, against clergy”.
Safaryan insists that talking about political persecution in Armenia is absolutely a matter of fantasy; there are no politically persecuted individuals in the country. All such cases either relate to corruption scandals, such as the case of Gyumri Mayor Vardan Ghukasyan, and so forth. Safaryan believes that those considered politically persecuted have successfully sought refuge in Russia, and Armenian-Russian extradition agreements do not apply to them. Shielded by this protection, they attempt to present themselves as victims of political persecution in Armenia.
Whereas Larisa Alaverdyan insists on the opposite and is convinced that the judicial and legislative bodies are today completely captured by the executive, which is unconstitutional.
The Civil Society
What issues and challenges exist today in the field of cooperation with civil society, and has the civil society institution in Armenia fully developed at all? On this question, our interlocutors are also not in agreement. According to Styopa Safaryan, relations between civil society and the current government are not easy, due to numerous objective and subjective reasons and political factors that can create problems; however, these relations are built on institutional foundations.
“Currently, for example, our Institute has been included—based on its own applications—in the advisory councils of 4–5 ministries. We have also observed genuine interest from the ministries in engaging with the civil society sector. Due to the mission of our Institute, for example, the Secretary of the Defense Council has come every month to directly respond to the most pressing questions from civil society and participate in the sharpest debates. For meetings with the Prime Minister, there are, for instance, informal expert groups—about two dozen—that meet from time to time and engage in very intense debates”. However, Larisa Alaverdyan argues that civil society was more active under previous governments and had achieved more tangible accomplishments than it does today.
“As the executive director of an organization founded in 1991 called ‘Against Legal Arbitrariness,’ I can say that we have been very active and collaborated with numerous organizations, not only in Yerevan but primarily across various regions of the country. We have achieved significant positive results—for example, the constitutional establishment of the Public Council, a body in which civil society played a major role. Additionally, a monitoring group was legally established to oversee the treatment of individuals in detention, specifically covering all pre-trial detention centers and penitentiary institutions. We were, in fact, the first in the region to have it enshrined in law that any two members of this body could visit these institutions at any time. However, this body is currently not functioning. Every year, we observed June 26 as the Day for the Protection of Victims of Torture and Cruel Treatment—not simply as an NGO gathering, but by inviting representatives from all law enforcement agencies. However, in the past two to three years, this day has not been acknowledged at all. Since 2018, unfortunately, a significant number of civil society organizations have become instruments of the current authorities’ propaganda, they remain silent about political persecutions in the country, such as those targeting clergy—a policy I consider destructive and strongly condemn. Today, the full burden of human rights advocacy falls on volunteer defenders, who, despite the circumstances, continue to strive to protect human rights in every case,” says Larisa Alaverdyan.
Nagorno-Karabakh Displaced Persons Still Face Unresolved Rights Issues
The former Human Rights Defender Larisa Alaverdyan also expresses concern about the protection of the rights of residents displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia, arguing that their fundamental rights are being systematically violated—illegally and unconstitutionally—by stripping them of Armenian citizenship and deliberately conflating territorial issues with citizenship.
“This is a very important issue today from the perspective of human rights protection. Even if the authorities have declared, illegally and unconstitutionally, that Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) is part of Azerbaijan, this does not mean that these people should be deprived of Armenian citizenship. I am currently addressing this issue with a group of colleagues, and I believe it will become particularly relevant in 2026, in connection with the upcoming elections”.
Election Outlook
According to Styopa Safaryan, tension and the increase of hybrid risks create risks of rights violations, which is an axiomatically true statement. “Elections, as mass events, may involve certain human rights violations. However, at the institutional level, since there is no deliberate intent to violate human rights—whether political or otherwise—I believe these issues are manageable. Naturally, there remain areas where deep-rooted problems have yet to be addressed.” Highlighting the current challenges, Larisa Alaverdyan points out that the authorities are introducing legislative changes that would place nearly all election observers under the control of the ruling government.
“This is a blow to democracy and sends a troubling message to other countries that declared themselves legal, democratic, and sovereign states over 30 years ago. For this reason, I have no positive expectations regarding the upcoming elections. I do not believe they will be free, fair, or transparent. On the contrary, since September of last year, the authorities have been conducting what amounts to a disguised election campaign, employing a variety of methods—including corrupt practices—to ‘buy’ favorable attitudes from different social groups,” concludes Armenia’s former Human Rights Defender.
As Armenia approaches the 7 June parliamentary elections, it faces the challenge of consolidating recent democratic gains while addressing ongoing human rights concerns. Progress in media freedom, civil society participation, and legal reforms exists alongside persistent issues with judicial independence, executive influence, and the protection of vulnerable groups. Expert assessments reveal a complex picture, balancing cautious optimism with continued vigilance. How authorities, political actors, and civil society engage with these challenges will be decisive for the credibility and fairness of the elections. Ultimately, the 2026 vote may serve as a litmus test for whether the country can translate legal commitments into tangible protections that are felt across society.
Contributed by Anna Vardanyan, an Armenian political journalist and researcher with over 18 years’ experience in defence policy, international relations, and security in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, has worked for Armenian media and held advisory roles in the National Assembly of Armenia.
