UN experts cast doubt on legal basis of terrorism charges against Armenian archbishop, analyst says

An assessment by independent United Nations experts questioning the legal basis for terrorism charges against Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan and members of his "Holy Struggle" protest movement deals a significant blow to the Armenian government's long-standing narrative surrounding the case, political analyst Suren Surenyants claims.

In a social media post on Friday, Surenyants said the U.N. experts expressed concern that the prosecution may point to the misuse of counterterrorism legislation and the undue restriction of fundamental rights. He also noted that the experts questioned the investigation's handling of evidence, saying authorities selectively released wiretapped conversations while preventing the defense from publishing excerpts it maintains are exculpatory.

According to Surenyants, those concerns raise serious questions about the impartiality of the investigation and the fairness of the judicial process.

Recalling the government's initial response to the case about a year ago, Surenyants said Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan publicly thanked law enforcement agencies during a cabinet meeting, while the ruling Civil Contract party's parliamentary faction issued a statement condemning what it described as a terrorist group before the case had gone to trial.

"In fact, the political leadership had already delivered its own verdict," Surenyants said.

He argued that the U.N. experts' findings call into question not only the legal grounds for the charges but also the impartiality of the authorities, suggesting the prosecution may have been politically motivated and intended to pressure the opposition.

Surenyants also pointed to a ruling issued the same day in which judge Farkhoyan rejected a request to replace the house arrest imposed on opposition lawmaker Artur Sargsyan. He said the decision disregarded a 2021 Constitutional Court ruling which requires the immediate release of a member of parliament unless the National Assembly has authorized restrictions on parliamentary immunity.

More broadly, Surenyants said the U.N. experts' assessment could have wider implications for other politically sensitive criminal cases in Armenia. If international experts are questioning the factual and legal foundations of one of the country's most prominent prosecutions, he argued, similar scrutiny could eventually extend to cases involving other opposition figures.

He further argued that in authoritarian systems, judicial institutions risk becoming instruments of political power rather than guardians of the rule of law, with prosecutions driven by political expediency instead of compelling evidence.

"Time is often the ultimate test," Surenyants said. "Cases based on political orders may serve those in power for a while, but eventually their factual and legal weaknesses are exposed. The U.N. experts' assessment is another important indication of that process."