The Armenian government’s confrontation with the Armenian Apostolic Church has reached an unprecedented point, with Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II appearing in court on criminal charges last week while the newly elected parliament opened without the Catholicos for the first time since Armenia regained independence.

The developments have intensified concerns among religious freedom advocates that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government is increasingly interfering in the internal affairs of the country’s historic church.

On Aug. 7, Karekin II and six senior clerics appeared before a court in Vagharshapat in connection with allegations that they failed to comply with a civil court order involving a defrocked bishop. The hearing ended almost immediately after the presiding judge recused himself because of a prior professional connection to the Catholicos’s defense attorney. The case is expected to be reassigned to another judge.

According to Reuters, the defendants face up to two years in prison if convicted. The prosecution stems from the church’s decision to defrock Bishop Gevorg Saroyan after a civil court had ordered the church to allow him to continue serving as primate of the Masis Diocese.

The criminal case represents the most serious legal challenge yet to the leadership of the Armenian Apostolic Church. It comes after more than a year of increasingly open conflict between the church and Pashinyan’s government.

An Unprecedented Court Case

The dispute began in January, when Karekin II removed Saroyan from his position as diocesan primate. Saroyan subsequently challenged the decision in civil court, seeking reinstatement.

The court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Armenian Apostolic Church from interfering with Saroyan’s exercise of his authority while the case was pending. Church authorities subsequently determined that Saroyan had violated ecclesiastical obligations and recommended that he be defrocked. Karekin II accepted the recommendation.

Prosecutors now argue that the defrocking amounted to obstruction of the court order.

The Armenian Bar Association has strongly criticized the prosecution, arguing that the underlying dispute concerns precisely the kind of internal religious matter in which civil courts should exercise restraint.

In an Aug. 7 statement, the organization said that decisions concerning “doctrine, ecclesiastical discipline, church governance, and the appointment or removal of clergy” are presumptively matters for religious communities rather than civil authorities. It called on prosecutors to reconsider the indictment against Karekin II and the six members of the Supreme Spiritual Council.

The organization also emphasized that respect for judicial authority and respect for religious autonomy are not inherently contradictory. Rather, it argued, the rule of law requires courts to recognize the limits of their authority when dealing with the internal governance of religious institutions.

Reuters reported that Armenian civil society groups have likewise raised concerns about the case. Anna Melikyan, a lawyer with Protection of Rights Without Borders, described the prosecution as “a clear interference of the executive power in church affairs” and said concerns about judicial independence become particularly serious in politically sensitive cases involving the church and clergy.

Catholicos Excluded from Parliament Opening

The court proceedings came days after another unprecedented development.

When Armenia’s newly elected National Assembly opened following the June parliamentary elections, Karekin II was not invited to address lawmakers.

The omission is particularly significant because the Catholicos has a formal role in the opening of a new parliament. Article 33 of Armenia’s Constitutional Law on the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly states that the President of the Republic and the Catholicos of All Armenians “have a right to present a welcome speech” at the opening of the first session. The provision has been part of Armenia’s parliamentary procedure throughout the post-Soviet period.

The law does not require the Catholicos to speak, but it expressly establishes his right to do so. The decision not to invite Karekin II therefore marked a significant break with established practice and came amid an increasingly hostile relationship between the government and church leadership.

Opposition lawmakers condemned the decision, while the two opposition parliamentary blocs subsequently visited the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin to receive the Catholicos’s blessing.

The timing was notable. The newly elected parliament was formed after Pashinyan’s Civil Contract Party won a majority in the June 7 election, giving the prime minister another political mandate after years of controversy surrounding his government’s handling of the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh and its efforts to shift Armenia away from Russia and toward closer relations with the West.

From Political Dispute to Religious Freedom Concern

Pashinyan has repeatedly called for Karekin II to resign. The prime minister has also accused the Armenian Apostolic Church of serving as a vehicle for foreign influence, particularly Russian influence. However, Reuters reported that he has presented no evidence for those accusations. Karekin II and the church have denied the allegations.

In April, Pashinyan’s Civil Contract Party released an electoral platform calling for the removal of the Catholicos and proposing significant changes to the structure and governance of the Armenian Apostolic Church. The proposals included appointing an interim church leader, drafting a new church charter, and establishing new oversight mechanisms.

Critics warned that the proposals represented an attempt to use political authority to reshape an institution whose internal governance is supposed to remain independent of the state.

The Armenian Bar Association has now framed the issue in broader international human rights terms. Citing European human rights law, the organization argued that religious autonomy is an essential component of freedom of religion and that state interference in internal religious governance must satisfy strict legal requirements.

The World Council of Churches has also expressed concern. On Aug. 7, the WCC said it was deeply concerned about the situation and warned against “undue interference in inner church matters.” The organization emphasized the Armenian Apostolic Church’s historic and spiritual role in Armenian life and expressed support for the church and its members.

A Historic Institution Under Pressure

The Armenian Apostolic Church occupies a unique place in Armenian society. Armenia is traditionally recognized as the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state religion, and the church has played a central role in preserving Armenian religious, cultural and national identity through centuries of foreign domination.

The government maintains that it is defending the authority of Armenia’s courts and addressing legitimate concerns about the church’s political activity. Pashinyan’s supporters have portrayed the Catholicos and other senior clergy as political actors aligned with opposition forces and, in some cases, with Moscow.

Critics, however, argue that the government is using the courts and political institutions to exert control over a religious institution precisely because the church has become an influential source of opposition to the prime minister.

Reuters reported that opposition politicians, church leaders and civil society groups view the prosecution as politically motivated and part of a broader crackdown on government critics. The trial has therefore become a test not only of the relationship between Pashinyan and Karekin II, but of the boundaries between political authority and religious independence in Armenia.