Your trusted source

The criminalization of “grave insults” has caused increased activity in the entire law-enforcement system of Armenia; the number of the criminal cases opened over “serious insults” will soon exceed those instituted in the event of any other crime, even burglary.

It turns out that the urge to swear at officials and inflict so-called “grave insults” on them has not subsided and the criminal prosecutions have been simply useless.

Panorama.am has spoken with Doctor of Law, Professor Gevorg Danielyan about the legal aspects of the new crime.

Panorama.am: Mr. Danielyan, it turns out that the law enforcement agencies are now thoroughly examining the posts of social media users and are initiating criminal proceedings under the article on grave insults. What is the reason for such censorship by the authorities?

Gevorg Danielyan: Such total censorship was inevitable, given also the unprecedented illegal judicial acts and, unfortunately, the moral and political atmosphere. Amid a significant increase in crimes, especially grave and especially grave crimes, the involvement of the huge potential of law enforcement agencies in such, in my opinion, blatantly unconstitutional and at the same time futile processes is extremely worrying.

Incidentally, this unprecedented activity is largely conditioned with the purely formal announcement that in the case of grave insults criminal proceedings will be initiated on the basis of private prosecution, i.e. on the victim's lawsuit. However, Part 2 of Article 137.1, which refers to public accusations, in which case it is the competent authorities that open proceedings at their own initiative, covers all cases, leaving no room for private accusations.

In particular, this means that public prosecution is initiated in all cases in which an act envisioned by this legal norm or materials containing a grave insult to a person are disseminated using information, communication technologies or in any other public way. Now think about it, what other way did they "forget"?

I should add that the article criminalizing “serious insults” is included in the Chapter 17 of Armenia’s Criminal Code titled "Crimes against someone’s freedom, honor and dignity ", so the injured party can be considered not a public service or other public asset but a person, regardless of his/her status. Only a small number of countries prudently do not classify insults to senior officials as a crime against a person, but I am talking about the domestic legislation.

Undoubtedly, the moral and political atmosphere formed in the country plays no less important role, as the law enforcement agencies simply follow the political stance and now the instructions that are openly issued in the National Assembly and from other high tribunes. It is difficult to imagine what would happen if the law enforcement agencies reacted with the same zeal to reports of other, more serious crimes recorded by the media and other information systems, or when a grave insult, albeit in extremely limited cases, is inflicted on political opponents. This selective approach, based on double standards, does not fit the basic principles of criminal policy. Once again, we are caught in a swampy cycle, not realizing that crime is not fought with selective severity, but with the inevitability of punishment.

Panorama.am: The Amnesty International's annual Report 2021/22 says the right to freedom of expression continued to be unduly restricted in Armenia in 2021. What steps should the international community have taken following such an assessment by a human rights group?

Gevorg Danielyan: Firstly, double standards are inherent not only in the domestic political life, but also in the international competent and non-governmental organizations. Let me remind you that exactly 12 years ago, all foreign ambassadors accredited in Armenia expressed “grave concerns” to the parliament, requesting it to decriminalize libel and slander, which was upheld. Incidentally, I myself, by virtue of my position, was against decriminalization, reasoning that:

a) any prosecution is out of the question, since only 2-3 criminal cases are opened every year,

b) cases are initiated solely on the basis of private prosecution, the victim's application, and prosecutors were deprived of the power to initiate cases on their own initiative.

As a result, the media outlets, which were encouraged without getting to the heart of the problem, found themselves in an even more vulnerable position, as it was perceived as an incentive for new civil suits with large amounts of compensation, which have been raised further by the current authorities. But even this did not lead to mass prosecutions. Finally, the number of lawsuits did not exceed two dozen a year, whereas now the number of criminal cases launched into grave insults is nearing 300 in less than a year.

However, international organizations remain completely silent, they do not notice it all, which was also expected. For those institutions, there are no clear legal principles, but they are interpreted through the prism of purely political interests.

It was not difficult to understand that we are talking about honor and dignity, which are essentially different. Honor is formed mainly in the sphere of subjective perceptions, when one and the same expression can be qualified in one case as a serious insult and in another case as a neutral word, while dignity is the sum of public perceptions and evaluations, it is not defined by the worldview of a given subject.

Coming back to your question, unfortunately, I must note that at this stage, when the international community is focused on other tempting geopolitical developments in line with its perceptions, it is unwise to expect any adequate, proportionate reaction. This, by the way, is evidenced by the clearly abstract and standard assessments of the Amnesty International you mentioned. To qualify everything that is happening in this period as simply undue restrictions on freedom of speech is, at the very least, tantamount to neutral praise.

Panorama.am: How do you see the decriminalization of “grave insults” under the current government?

Gevorg Danielyan: First, you know that ex-Ombudsman Arman Tatoyan appealed to the Constitutional Court, the hearing of the appeal was scheduled for March 22, but for some reason it was postponed. In case of failure in this instance, it will be necessary to apply to the ECHR. This legal norm is problematic not only in terms of its content, but also in terms of its enforcement, since criminal proceedings do not even take into account the country where the post was made, the location of the specific server of the information system, etc.

The problem is that the acts defined according to these criteria do not lead to criminal liability in other countries, we are unique from this point of view, thus legal support is out of the question.

Anyway, adopting laws hastily, let alone enforcing them, can never be seen as a key tool in the fight against crime, moreover, they have a very negative effect. It is an extreme measure, which is resorted to when reasonable and deliberate steps do not yield minimal results. And the atmosphere of this widespread division and undue anger towards one another has developed precisely as a result of a political culture that favors acts of unwarranted humiliation of political opponents, division into insiders and outsiders as well as public flouting of traditional norms.

Let's hope that the competent authorities would realize the absurdity of this initiative and would find the courage and will to review it.

The original article by Lala Ter-Ghazaryan in Armenian is available here.