The evaluation of the independent experts of the UN, which cast doubt on the legal basis of the charges of terrorism brought against Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan and the members of the “Holy Struggle”, is a serious blow to the official version promoted by the government for a year.

Experts have expressed concern that the case may indicate abuse of anti-terror legislation and restriction of fundamental rights. They also drew attention to the fact that the investigation selectively released the tapes of the wiretapped conversations, while preventing the defense from releasing the parts it believed had exculpatory significance. This circumstance raises serious questions not only about the impartiality of the preliminary investigation, but also about the fairness of the entire trial.

It is not difficult to remember what kind of propaganda campaign the government organized just a year ago, presenting this case as the discovery of the “terror of the century”. At the beginning of the government session, Nikol Pashinyan publicly thanked the law enforcement agencies, and the “Civil Agreement” faction issued a condemning statement on behalf of the National Assembly regarding the “terrorist group”, even though the court had not yet started the investigation of the case. In fact, the political authority had already published its “sentence”.

Today, however, not only the validity of the accusation, but also the impartiality of the government and law enforcement agencies are questioned at the international expert level. In the context of the UN assessments, there is clearly a concern that the criminal prosecution could have been motivated by political motives and used to put pressure on the opposition.

It is symbolic that today another controversial decision was recorded in the same case. Judge Farkhoyan refused to change the house arrest imposed on NA MP Artur Sargsyan, ignoring the 2021 legal position of the Constitutional Court, according to which the status of a deputy implies his immediate release, if the National Assembly did not give the appropriate consent for the restriction of immunity.

However, the conclusion of the UN experts on this case has a much deeper significance. It reveals a systemic problem. if international experts question the factual and legal basis of one of the most noisy criminal cases of the government, then sooner or later the same questions will arise regarding other cases with political implications. There are reasons to believe that the cases initiated against many political figures who are in prison today will also not withstand the legal and international professional examination over time.

In authoritarian systems, justice stops serving the law and starts serving the government. Under these conditions, accusations are often made not on the basis of indisputable evidence, but on the basis of political expediency, and the courts and law enforcement agencies are turned into instruments serving the will of the government.

As a rule, time is the strongest examiner. The cases constructed by political order may serve the interests of the government for some time, but in the end, their factual and legal bankruptcy is revealed. This assessment by UN experts is another important evidence of that process.

Political scientist Suren Surenyants

—