The criminal case against the young people after the incident in St. Anna Church raises many questions.
The authorities claim that there was “interference with the legal official’s official or political activity”. But there is a fundamental contradiction here. Did the Prime Minister carry out official or political activities in the church?
According to the logic of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, the church and the state are separate. The church is not a platform of state administration, and the implementation of state power cannot take place there. If there is no service activity, then what did those young people “interfere” with?
This is the key point where the whole structure of the accusation collapses.
Moreover, the proposed articles are clearly disproportionate and artificially expanded. The juxtaposition of hooliganism and “interference” creates an artificially weighted charge that is more like a political message that those who disagree should be punished.
This case is a dangerous precedent. If any incident can be presented as “interference in the activities of an official”, then tomorrow any disagreement can be criminalized with the same logic.
If we consider the “activities of an official” in the church as logical and proportional, then this means that expressing disagreement with the Prime Minister in any public place (church, cafe, theater) can become “interference”. This is a legal absurdity and a dangerous precedent.
Political scientist Suren Surenyants
—
Disclaimer: This article was contributed and translated into English by Babken Chilingarian. While we strive for quality, the views and accuracy of the content remain the responsibility of the contributor. Please verify all facts independently before reposting or citing.
Direct link to this article: https://www.armenianclub.com/2026/03/31/in-the-intervention-church-a-new-round-of-legal-absurdity/