Siranush Sahakyan is the director of the International and Comparative Law Center in Yerevan. photo from i.c. law – armenia
Guest commentary by Siranush Sahakyan
In June 2025, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan escalated public attacks against the Armenian Apostolic Church by referring to churches as “closets cluttered with junk,” publicly insulting clergy, and accusing the Catholicos of moral transgressions. He has since called for Archbishop Arshak Khachatryan to be defrocked and proposed forming a state-managed “coordinating council” to arrange the election of a new Catholicos to head Armenia’s national church. This follows an earlier wave of calls for clerical resignation in 2018 under the slogan “New Armenia, New Patriarch.” But what was once a civil protest has now become a government-led campaign, in direct violation of Article 17 of Armenia’s Constitution, which guarantees the separation of church and state.
International law stipulates religious autonomy
The removal of religious leaders by public authorities raises serious concerns under international human rights law, particularly in light of Armenia’s binding obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These instruments enshrine the principle of religious autonomy, affirming the right of religious communities to govern their internal affairs—especially the selection and retention of their leaders—free from state interference. Any attempt by public authorities to intervene in such matters constitutes an infringement of this fundamental guarantee.
The 1981 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, adopted by the UN General Assembly, affirms the broad scope of religious freedom. Article 6(h) of the Declaration explicitly recognizes the right: “To train, appoint, elect or designate by succession appropriate leaders called for by the requirements and standards of any religion or belief.” This language clearly establishes that religious communities hold the exclusive prerogative to determine their leadership in accordance with their own doctrines and traditions.
Further guidance is provided by the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 22 on Article 18 of the ICCPR. This authoritative interpretation stresses that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief encompasses more than private worship; it extends to institutional and communal practices, including governance. Paragraph 4 of the Comment notes: “This includes acts integral to the conduct by religious groups of their basic affairs, such as the freedom to choose their religious leaders, priests and teachers […]”. This statement affirms that the appointment and retention of religious leadership is not ancillary to religious freedom but lies at its very core. Forced removals or the imposition of state-approved leaders undermine this protected sphere and violate Article 18.
The European Court of Human Rights has long established that the autonomy of religious communities is a cornerstone of pluralism in a democratic society and that the State must remain neutral in religious matters. In Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria (2005), the Court ruled that state-imposed changes in religious leadership constituted unlawful interference. In Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia v. Moldova (2001), the Court found that refusal to recognize a religious body based on political motivations was a violation of freedom of religion.
Political antagonism motivates prosecution of businessman Samvel Karapetyan
This institutional overreach is now being reinforced by politically motivated prosecutions. On 17 June 2025, Armenian businessman and philanthropist Samvel Karapetyan, a major benefactor of the Armenian Apostolic Church, was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention mere hours after making public remarks in support of the Armenian Apostolic Church and voicing concern over mounting governmental encroachments on its autonomy. The construction of St. Sargis Church in Tashir (Armenia), the renovation of the Mother Cathedral at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin (Armenia), the spiritual center of the Armenian Apostolic Church and one of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and the restoration of St. Gevorg Church in Beirut and St. James church in Jerusalem, among other projects, were made possible with his support. In recognition of his contributions, Samvel Karapetyan was awarded the prestigious Order of the Knight of Holy Etchmiadzin in 2019.
In a widely viewed interview, Karapetyan warned:
A small group, having forgotten the history of the Armenian people and the millennia-old legacy of the Armenian Church, has launched an assault on our Church and our nation. As someone who has always stood by the Armenian Church and people, I will be directly involved. If the politicians fail, we will take part in our own way.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan responded with a vulgar outburst on social media, targeting both clerics and their supporters. He referred to them as “whorish ‘spiritual leaders’ and their whorish ‘benefactors,’” rhetorically asking, “Why have they become so active? No matter—we will pacify them again. This time, permanently.” Addressing Karapetyan directly, Pashinyan threatened: “He says, ‘we will participate in our own way.’ Now I will intervene in my own way—with you, scoundrel. Or rather, with all of you.”
Government unleashes legal backlash against Karapetyan, flouting due process
Shortly thereafter, Karapetyan was charged with “public calls to seize power” and remanded to custody. The judicial proceedings that followed failed to meet even minimal standards of due process. Courts failed to consider less severe alternatives such as bail or house arrest—violating the principle of necessity and proportionality under Article 5 of the ECHR. The charge itself, premised solely on the peaceful exercise of free expression, was arbitrarily framed as a criminal offense. The judicial decisions lack individualized reasoning and mirror the prosecutor’s claims, reflecting a pattern of bias. These actions bear striking resemblance to the ECtHR’s findings in Merabishvili v. Georgia (2017), where the Court found that pre-trial detention served ulterior political motives in violation of Article 18.
Following Karapetyan’s detention, his business operations—including “Tashir Pizza” restaurants and Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA)—were subjected to immediate and sustained pressure. A draft law to nationalize ENA was introduced in Parliament, while Yerevan Municipality officials removed banners calling for his release. These measures collectively constitute a campaign of economic coercion, aiming to punish and deter civic figures aligned with religious institutions. In Centre of Societies for Krishna Consciousness in Russia and Frolov v. Russia, the ECtHR found that state harassment, discriminatory rhetoric, and administrative obstruction of religious groups violated Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention.
State retaliation threatens democratic freedoms in Armenia
This chilling pattern of state retaliation—fueled by public threats, arrests, and economic punishment—sends a clear message: aligning with the Church or publicly challenging the government carries real personal and legal risk. Such tactics foster a climate of fear and self-censorship, severely undermining freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and democratic participation. If left unchecked, these actions risk normalizing authoritarian governance and extinguishing pluralism in Armenia.
Siranush Sahakyan is an international human rights lawyer and the director of the International and Comparative Law Center in Yerevan. She has previously served as an assistant to the President of Armenia, served at the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia, chaired the Corruption Prevention Commission of the RA, and was an ad hoc judge for the European Court of Human Rights.
