Trial of Catholicos, six bishops “violates” Church’s “right of autonomy”
Felix Corley, Forum 18
The criminal trial of seven senior bishops of the Armenian Apostolic Church, including its leader Catholicos Karekin, is due to begin at Armavir Region First Instance Court on the afternoon of 7 August. They face up to two years’ imprisonment for “failing to execute a judicial act or obstructing its execution” for refusing to reinstate a dismissed bishop in defiance of a court order. Ara Avakyan of the Investigative Committee, who led the investigation, refused to talk. The case “violates the right of autonomy of religious institutions”, says Isabella Sargsyan.
Hearings at the trial are due to be open. Those on trial will be: 74-year-old Catholicos Karekin II; Archbishop Nathan Hovhannisian; Archbishop Haykazun Najarian; Bishop Vahan Hovhannesyan; Bishop Makar Hakobyan; Bishop Moushegh Babayan; and Bishop Hovnan Hakobyan. The court is less than one kilometre from the Armenian Church’s headquarters at Echmiadzin (see below).
The forthcoming trial comes amid severe tensions between the Armenian Church leadership and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Catholicos Karekin and Prime Minister Pashinyan have each repeatedly called on the other to leave office (see below).
Both the Constitution and the Religion Law guarantee the separation of religious organizations and the state. Armenia’s international human rights commitments also require it to respect the autonomy of religious organizations (see below).
The lawyer Armine Fanyan, who represents Bishop Hovnan Hakobyan and Bishop Markar Hakobyan, insists all seven defendants should be acquitted. “The trial is obviously illegal,” she told Forum 18. “All are innocent” (see below).
Isabella Sargsyan of the Eurasia Partnership Foundation similarly expresses concern about the trial. “The case from the very beginning is not in line with international standards on freedom of religion or belief and violates the right of autonomy of religious institutions,” she told Forum 18. “The state cannot interfere in the hierarchy of religious institutions. Cases of defrocked priests are not admissible in civil courts” (see below).
The Investigative Committee (which launched the criminal investigation in January) did not answer Forum 18’s 4 February questions as to:
– how the investigative Committee could investigate a decision that is within the competence of an autonomous religious organization, given the separation of the church and the state in Armenia’s Constitution;
– and how the Investigative Committee could give reassurance that prosecutions of church leaders who oppose Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s interference in the Church are motivated solely by objective, legal criteria and not by political factors or revenge (see below).
Forum 18 asked Investigator Ara Avakyan (who led the investigation) why he had investigated Church leaders over an internal Church decision which was nothing to do with the court. He said he did not believe that it was Forum 18 on the line. “Don’t ask anything. Goodbye,” he said. He then put the phone down (see below).
Forum 18 wrote to the General Prosecutor’s Office in Yerevan, before the start of the working day in Yerevan of 3 August to ask:
– given the separation of religious organizations from the state, why prosecutors brought a criminal case against leaders of an autonomous religious organization who are being punished for taking an internal decision that is within their competence;
– and how the General Prosecutor’s Office could give reassurance that prosecutions of church leaders who oppose Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s interference in the Church are motivated solely by objective, legal criteria and not by political factors or revenge.
Forum 18 has received no response (see below).
Forum 18 wrote to the Office of Human Rights Defender Anahit Manasyan to ask:
– given the separation of religious organizations from the state, what she and her office have done to defend the right of these leaders of an autonomous religious organization who are being punished for taking an internal decision that is within their competence;
– and whether she or a representative from her office will be attending the trial as an observer.
The Office’s response stressed that “pursuant to the constitutional and legislative mandate”, the Defender “is not authorized to interfere with judicial proceedings or to influence the consideration of cases that are pending before the courts”. It said she must “the principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers” and could not therefore “express positions that could be interpreted as influencing the administration of justice” (see below).
Since 2025, the government has restricted the activity of the Church. A legal amendment adopted in October 2025 removed the status of “public broadcaster” from the Church’s Shoghakat TV channel. In December 2025, the government halted its broadcasts and liquidated the company running it. In January 2026, the Defence Minister ended the Church’s military chaplaincy service.
Pashinyan admitted in early December 2025 ordering the National Security Service (NSS) to try to censor church liturgies he attended by preventing priests from commemorating the Catholicos.
“Religious organisations shall have equal rights and shall enjoy autonomy”
Armenia’s 2015 Constitution and the 1991 Religion Law (most recently amended in March 2026) govern relations between the state and religious communities.
Article 41 of the Constitution states that “Religious organizations shall have equal rights and shall enjoy autonomy. The procedure of creation and operation of religious organizations shall be stipulated by law.”
Article 17 of the Religion Law includes the provision: “In the Republic of Armenia, Church and State are separate.” It adds that as part of this separation, the state “Shall not interfere in the activities and internal affairs of church and Religious Organizations as long as they operate in accordance with the law, no state agency or person acting on behalf of such agency shall operate within a Religious Organization.”
One religious community, the Armenian Apostolic Church, has a special law: the 2007 Law Regarding the Relationship Between the Republic of Armenia and the Holy Apostolic Armenian Church.
Article 2 of this Law includes the provision: “The Republic of Armenia recognizes the Holy Armenian Apostolic Church as autocephalous (self-governing) within its hierarchal scope.”
Armenia’s international human rights obligations also require it to respect religious organizations’ autonomy. The OSCE / Council of Europe Venice Commission Guidelines on the Legal Personality of Religious or Belief Communities declare that “states should observe their obligations by ensuring that national law leaves it to the religious or belief community itself to decide on its leadership, its internal rules, the substantive content of its beliefs, the structure of the community and methods of appointment of the clergy and its name and other symbols”.
Prime Minister calls for Armenian Church leadership change
On 29 May 2025, at a government session unrelated to the Church, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan sharply criticized Armenian Apostolic Church leaders. After some bishops condemned his remarks, Pashinyan repeated his criticisms the following day. He called on clergy who violated their vows of celibacy to be defrocked.
On 2 June 2025, Pashinyan called on Catholicos Karekin to resign. He claimed the Catholicos had violated his vow of celibacy by fathering a child. “I raise the issue as a follower of the Armenian Apostolic Church because I see a spiritual security issue, and also as the Prime Minister of Armenia because I see a state security issue.”
In another post, Pashinyan declared that the Armenian government must have a “decisive say” in the choice of the next Catholicos. He called for future candidates for Catholicos to undergo background checks.
The Church’s Supreme Spiritual Council, chaired by Catholicos Karekin, rejected Pashinyan’s comments at a 2 June 2025 meeting at Echmiadzin. “The Prime Minister of Armenia has launched yet another campaign against the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church, using language unbecoming of a statesman – replete with insults and accusations – and positioning himself above the law,” its statement read.
“Matters of the Church are governed by ecclesiastical canons and regulations and lie beyond the jurisdiction of state and political authorities,” the statement insisted.
On Sunday 9 June 2025, Pashinyan again called for Catholicos Karekin to resign. “As a faithful member of the Armenian Apostolic Church, I believe we must elect a new Catholicos,” he said. “Just as we returned the government to the people, we must now return the Church to the people.”
The following day, Pashinyan called on followers of the Armenian Apostolic Church to support efforts to reform the Church’s leadership. In a public message, he urged the formation of a Coordinating Group to organize elections for a new Catholicos and “liberate” the Mother See of Holy Echmiadzin.
“At this stage, we need to establish a Coordinating Group to manage the organizational aspects of this agenda. Members of the Coordinating Group should be followers of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church,” Pashinyan declared. “I will personally take responsibility for selecting the first 10 members of the Coordinating Group, based on conversations and assessments regarding the criteria listed above. Later on, the Group itself will determine the procedures for expansion, its structure, and any other necessary matters.”
Church divisions
Of the more than 30 archbishops and bishops in Armenia and in the worldwide Armenian diaspora, ten openly backed Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s demands for Catholicos Karekin’s resignation in November 2025.
At a meeting with at least seven of these bishops at his residence on 5 January 2026, Pashinyan outlined his plans to reform the Church. He read out a statement – which he signed in his capacity of Prime Minister – specifying the removal of the current Catholicos and the formation of a Coordinating Council comprised of himself and the ten bishops that support him. The statement also condemned the “uncanonical practice of involving the Church in politics and using it to serve various agendas and interests”.
On 5 January 2026, the Echmiadzin Catholicosate issued a statement condemning Pashinyan and the bishops who backed him. “The actions undertaken by the Head of the Government of Armenia, under the pretext of bringing the internal life of the Church into accordance with the canons and reforming it, constitute a violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and infringe upon the rights of the Church enshrined both in international law and in the legislation of Armenia.”
Investigative Committee investigates bishop’s defrocking
Catholicos Karekin defrocked a number of priests for supporting Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s campaign. In several locations, police have protected such priests. Officers have allowed the defrocked priests to continue using the churches and prevented new clergy named by diocesan leaders from entering.
On 10 January 2026, the Church dismissed Bishop Gevorg Saroyan as head of its Masyatsotn Diocese. He had backed Prime Minister Pashinyan’s calls for a change of leadership in the Armenian Church. Police were seen outside the diocesan offices in Masis, apparently to prevent the Church leadership’s enforcement of the dismissal.
With Pashinyan’s encouragement, Saroyan challenged the dismissal in court. The Court of General Jurisdiction of Civil Cases of Armavir Region ruled on 16 January that he must be reinstated pending its decision on the lawsuit. It also said the Church must not try to stop him from performing his duties in any way, including “the management of the financial resources of the Masyatsotn Diocese and the execution of financial transactions, until the adoption of a final judicial act within the case”. The decision was served on the Chancellery at Echmiadzin on 19 January.
Echmiadzin rejected the court decision, insisting that the Church takes such decisions based on its own canons.
On 27 January, the Church’s Supreme Spiritual Council defrocked Bishop Gevorg.
Some of the 24 parish priests serving in the Masyatsotn Diocese claimed that local government officials and other Pashinyan loyalists in two provincial communities pressured them to pledge allegiance to the sacked primate.
Investigative Committee opens criminal case
The Investigative Committee’s General Department for Investigation of Particularly Important Cases launched a criminal investigation on 29 January 2026 under Article 507, Part 2 (“Failing to execute a judicial act or obstructing its execution” by someone in an official position) because the Church leadership had failed to reinstate Gevorg Saroyan as Bishop of its Masyatsotn Diocese. Investigator Ara Avakyan from the Investigative Committee in Yerevan was leading the investigation.
On 31 January, the Investigative Committee issued summonses to six bishops who are members of the Supreme Spiritual Council and one priest requiring them to appear before the Investigative Committee as defendants in the criminal case. It then banned them from leaving the country while the investigation was underway.
The authorities barred Catholicos Karekin from leaving the country in February. This meant that he was unable to travel to neighbouring Georgia on 22 March for the funeral of Patriarch Ilya of the Georgian Orthodox Church. A court overturned the travel ban in April. However, it was subsequently reinstated.
Forum 18 asked Investigator Avakyan on 3 August why he had investigated Church leaders over an internal Church decision which was nothing to do with the court. He said he did not believe that it was Forum 18 on the line. “Don’t ask anything. Goodbye,” he said. He then put the phone down.
Forum 18 asked the Investigative Committee’s Press Office in Yerevan in writing on 4 February:
– why the Investigative Committee launched an investigation following the Supreme Spiritual Council’s decision to defrock Bishop Gevorg Saroyan of Masyatsotn Diocese;
– how the investigative Committee could investigate a decision that is within the competence of an autonomous religious organization, given the separation of the church and the state in Armenia’s Constitution;
– and how the Investigative Committee could give reassurance that prosecutions of church leaders who oppose Prime Minister Pashinyan’s interference in the Church are motivated solely by objective, legal criteria and not by political factors or revenge.
In an 11 February response, Vahe Mirzoyan of the Investigative Committee did not answer these questions. Citing freedom of information laws, he said “it is not possible to provide information” on the questions, “as they contain data from the preliminary investigation that are not subject to disclosure”. He added on the last question, that “Your wording bears no relevance to the investigative body”.
Did investigator exceed permitted investigation time limit?
Article 192 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives investigators three months to complete their investigation in the case of minor crimes (which include cases under Criminal Code Article 507). However, Investigator Ara Avakyan, who was leading the case, extended the investigation time limit as he claimed extra time was needed for “international inquiries”.
Several of those under investigation – including Bishop Hovnan Hakobyan and Bishop Markar Hakobyan – challenged the length of time of the investigation. “We don’t understand what those ‘international inquiries’ were,” the lawyer Armine Fanyan, who represents the two bishops, told Forum 18 from Yerevan on 3 August. “They wouldn’t give us documents on this. It was an artificial pretext.”
In July, the court upheld the suits lodged by the two bishops. “The court ruled in both cases that the investigator had exceeded the time limit,” Fanyan added. “This means he acted illegally. The criminal cases against the two should therefore have been closed.” The cases were not closed as the investigator is challenging the decisions.
Forum 18 was unable to ask Investigator Avakyan on 3 August what justified the extension of the three-month investigation time limit.
Supreme Spiritual Council condemns “pressure on clergy through coercive measures and threats”
On 3 April, in preparation for the 7 June parliamentary election, the Civil Contract Party led by Nikol Pashinyan published its manifesto. “In recent decades, as a result of the activities of the de facto leadership of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church, the faithful community has been and continues to be alienated from the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church,” it declared.
The manifesto said the party “supports the reform agenda” for the Church. It said it would ensure the removal of the “de facto” head of the Church (a reference to Catholicos Karekin), the appointment of an acting Catholicos and the election of a new Catholicos.
The manifesto claimed to acknowledge the separation of religious organizations from the state. It insisted it would maintain this separation “by removing the Church from politics”.
The Church’s Supreme Spiritual Council repeatedly condemned state moves against the Church. A statement from the 19 May meeting at the Mother See of Echmiadzin, chaired by Catholicos Karekin, condemned “unlawful actions”. These included “pressure on clergy through coercive measures and threats, the initiation of illegal criminal proceedings against several clergymen, the encouragement of clergy who deviate from Church order, the conclusion of unlawful employment contracts with individual priests, as well as condemnable cases of appointing defrocked individuals to spiritual service under state patronage”.
The Supreme Spiritual Council complained that these actions “directly violate both the rights of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church and fundamental human freedoms and rights”.
The Supreme Spiritual Council called for a “fair response” from international structures and human rights organizations to “the unlawful actions of the ruling political force aimed at interfering in the self-governance of the worldwide Armenian Church”. It particularly highlighted the election program of the Civil Contract party (led by Nikol Pashinyan) “regarding the ‘reform’ of the Church through the deposition of the nationally elected Patriarch”. It stressed: “This step is both uncanonical and illegal.”
“The Supreme Spiritual Council reiterates that no structure outside the Church and its competent ecclesiastical bodies, even one endowed with state or political authority, may carry out the ‘reform’ of ecclesiastical life.”
Criminal case presented to court for trial
The Investigate Committee completed its investigation into the Catholicos and six other bishops under Criminal Code Article 507, Part 2. It handed over the case to the General Prosecutors’ Office. In July, the General Prosecutors’ Office prepared the case for court.
Prosecutors presented the case to Armavir Region First Instance Court in Echmiadzin (where the Church headquarters are located) on 28 July, which assigned it to Judge Hakob Manukyan. On 30 July, the Judge set the preliminary hearing for 4 pm on 7 August, according to court records. Hearings at the trial are due to be open.
Those on trial are:
– Catholicos Karekin II Nersisyan (born Ktrich Nersisyan, 21 August 1951)
– Archbishop Nathan Hovhannisian (born Samvel Hovhannisian, 9 May 1955)
– Archbishop Haykazun Najarian (born Vrezh Najarian, 1952)
– Bishop Vahan Hovhannesyan (born Sarkis Hovhannesyan, 1 January 1963)
– Bishop Makar Hakobyan (born Edgar Hakobyan, 1979)
– Bishop Moushegh Babayan (born Nelson Babayan, 1978)
– Bishop Hovnan Hakobyan (born Artur Hakobyan, 1978)
“Karekin II Nersisyan is accused of committing a prohibited act under threat of punishment, committed with intent, that he, being also the Chairman of the Supreme Spiritual Council of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church religious organization, using his official powers, obstructed the execution of another judicial act that has entered into legal force,” the court listing for the case notes. It details the court decision over defrocked bishop Gevorg (Arman) Saroyan.
The case notes are shorter for the other six bishops. Each is described as “accused of committing a crime prohibited by the threat of punishment, that he, being a high-ranking clergyman, archbishop, included in the Supreme Spiritual Council of the religious organization Armenian Apostolic Holy Church .. using his official powers, obstructed the execution of another judicial act that has entered into legal force”.
Court records list the defrocked bishop Gevorg (Arman) Saroyan as a victim in the case.
The Yerevan lawyer Ara Zohrabyan is leading the defence team. The lawyer Armine Fanyan represents Bishop Hovnan Hakobyan and Bishop Markar Hakobyan.
If convicted, the seven clergy face a fine, community service of up to 150 hours, restricted freedom of up to two years, or a jail term of up to two years.
Catholicos Karekin and the six bishops are all under travel bans, court records note.
“The case from the very beginning is not in line with international standards”
“In a state that is obliged by international and domestic law not to interfere in the internal affairs of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church, the authorities have granted the status of an accused to the Armenian Patriarch for performing a church function,” the lawyer Ara Zohrabyan wrote on Facebook on 30 July. “This is a shameful historical event.”
Zohrabyan describes the criminal trial of Catholicos Karekin as “the second case in the last hundred years when the state authorities have made the Catholicos of All Armenians a target of criminal or violent pressure”. In 1938, Soviet state security agents murdered Catholicos Khoren Muradbekian at Echmiadzin.
The lawyer Armine Fanyan, who represents Bishop Hovnan Hakobyan and Bishop Markar Hakobyan, insists all seven defendants should be acquitted. “The trial is obviously illegal,” she told Forum 18 from Yerevan on 3 August. “All are innocent.”
Isabella Sargsyan of the Eurasia Partnership Foundation similarly expresses concern about the trial. “The case from the very beginning is not in line with international standards on freedom of religion or belief and violates the right of autonomy of religious institutions,” she told Forum 18 from Yerevan on 3 August. “The state cannot interfere in the hierarchy of religious institutions. Cases of defrocked priests are not admissible in civil courts.”
Forum 18 wrote to Arevik Khachatryan, Head of the Public Relations Department of the General Prosecutor’s Office in Yerevan, before the start of the working day in Yerevan of 3 August to ask:
– given the separation of religious organisations from the state, why prosecutors brought a criminal case against leaders of an autonomous religious organization who are being punished for taking an internal decision that is within their competence;
– and how the General Prosecutor’s Office could give reassurance that prosecutions of church leaders who oppose Prime Minister Pashinyan’s interference in the Church are motivated solely by objective, legal criteria and not by political factors or revenge.
Forum 18 had received no response by the end of the working day in Yerevan of 3 August.
Forum 18 wrote to the office of Human Rights Defender Anahit Manasyan to ask:
– Given the separation of religious organizations from the state, what she and her office have done to defend the right of these leaders of an autonomous religious organization who are being punished for taking an internal decision that is within their competence;
– and whether she or a representative from her office will be attending the trial as an observer.
The Office of the Human Rights Defender responded on 3 August. It noted that it “has publicly addressed” the cases against the Armenian Church’s leaders “through public statements and reflected in the Annual Report, in accordance with the Office’s mandate”.
The Office stressed that “pursuant to the constitutional and legislative mandate”, the Defender “is not authorized to interfere with judicial proceedings or to influence the consideration of cases that are pending before the courts”. It said she must “the principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers” and could not therefore “express positions that could be interpreted as influencing the administration of justice”.
