- Gayane Saribekian
Armenian law-enforcement authorities have not prosecuted any of their officers in connection with the death of a man arrested two months ago for tearing down an election campaign poster of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian’s party.
The incident occurred in Nshavan, a village 20 kilometers south of Yerevan, three weeks before Armenia’s disputed parliamentary elections. The Investigative Committee moved to charge a local resident, Armen Hovannisian, with obstruction of the Civil Contract party’s election campaign following his arrest.
Hovannisian was transferred from a local police station to a psychiatric clinic in Yerevan after engaging what the Armenia Interior Ministry described as “mentally unbalanced behavior” the next morning. According to the ministry, Hovannisian hanged himself there several hours later.
The man’s death sparked an uproar from over a dozen Armenian civic groups. They said that he should not have been arrested in the first place because under Armenian law his action is punishable by a fine, rather than imprisonment. The Armenian police launched an internal inquiry into the arrest at the time.
A police spokesperson told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service on Wednesday that the inquiry was discontinued because of a criminal investigation conducted by another law-enforcement agency. Nobody has been arrested or charged in that investigation.
Zaruhi Hovannisian (no relation to the deceased man), a veteran human rights activist, said this fact shows that the security apparatus operates with impunity when it targets critics of the country’s current leadership. She suggested that the Nshavan man’s arrest was meant to “please the government.”
“If individuals are punished after making decisions to please the government, there is a danger that others will not make such decisions,” she said.
During and after the election campaign, the authorities detained hundreds of opposition members and supporters on mostly vote-buying charges denied by the Armenian opposition. They have been far more lenient towards Pashinian’s loyalists accused of assaulting opposition supporters.
One such incident occurred in Nor Kyurin, a village close to Nshavan, on June 2. A local council member affiliated with Civil Contract was caught on camera punching one of the supporters of the main opposition Strong Armenia bloc who campaigned in the community. The Investigative Committee confirmed on Wednesday that it has not prosecuted him.
Another video shot on election day in Lichk, a village in the eastern Gegharkunik province, showed several men led by the village chief, Sirakan Sirakanian, beating up a Strong Armenia proxy. The latter said he was assaulted after telling them not to interfere with the voting.
Sirakanian was never prosecuted. The authorities instead indicted but not arrested two other men.
—
USTDA continues to work with Armenia on developing a number of projects, says
The United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) continues to work with Armenia on developing a number of projects, Karl Kress, USTDA Regional Director for Europe and Eurasia, said in response to a question about whether the agency is in talks with Armenia on the supply of small modular reactors (SMRs).
Kress addressed the issue during a press briefing while responding to a journalist’s question.
The journalist noted that Armenia’s nuclear programme had long been linked to Russia’s Rosatom and asked whether Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s election victory had changed the situation, and whether the U.S. Trade and Development Agency was negotiating with Armenia on the supply of small modular reactors.
“We have been working with Armenia for some time on developing a number of project concepts in the country. That work has continued after the elections in exactly the same way as it did before. At this stage, we at USTDA have not seen any changes in that regard or in the overall approach. As I mentioned, we have been cooperating with Armenia on the development of several projects for some time, and we hope to be able to announce some news on this front in the near future,” Kress said.
Armenia plans to extend the operational lifetime of the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant by another 10 years, until 2036. Before then, the government intends to build a new nuclear power plant.
The Armenian authorities have already announced that they have decided on the type of the new facility, which will be a modular nuclear power plant. Armenia is currently holding talks with five countries — the United States, France, China, Russia and South Korea — on the project.
Published by Armenpress, original at
—
Armenia reaffirms readiness to work with partners to strengthen synergies
Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Robert Abisoghomonyan participated and delivered remarks at the side event titled “Bridging science, policy and practice to address the planetary triple crisis: Strengthening synergies for the SDGs and a sustainable future beyond 2030” held in New York on the sidelines of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development.
The Armenian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that, in his remarks, the deputy foreign minister stressed the need to address climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution through an integrated approach. In this context, he highlighted the importance of the joint declaration on synergies signed by the current and incoming presidencies of the Rio Conventions in Belém.
He added that COP17 could help further strengthen that political commitment and expand international support.
Addressing the effective response to the planetary triple crisis, Abisoghomonyan underscored the importance of an inclusive national approach and ensuring the full participation of all stakeholders.
He also presented the Armenian government’s efforts in this direction.
The deputy foreign minister reaffirmed Armenia’s readiness to cooperate with all partners to strengthen synergies and promote a sustainable future, including in its capacity as the incoming president of the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17).
Published by Armenpress, original at
—
Sustainable development is a key pillar of Armenia’s long-term development str
Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Robert Abisoghomonyan participated and delivered remarks at the ministerial segment of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development in New York, held under the theme “Transformative, just, innovative and coordinated action for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals for a sustainable future for all.”
The Armenian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that, in his remarks, Abisoghomonyan stressed that sustainable development is one of the key pillars of Armenia’s long-term development strategy. In this context, he presented the priorities of the Armenia-United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework 2026–2030, which are aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and aimed at advancing its implementation.
The deputy foreign minister also addressed recent regional developments, highlighting the importance of peace, connectivity and resilient infrastructure in achieving sustainable development. He presented the TRIPP initiative and the signing of the strategic cooperation framework agreement on the project as an important step towards promoting regional connectivity, trade and investment, as well as advancing peace, stability and prosperity.
He also referred to the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17), which will be held in Yerevan later this year, including the planned Leaders’ Summit and ministerial segment, underscoring the importance of ensuring high-level participation.
Concluding his remarks, Abisoghomonyan reaffirmed Armenia’s commitment to promoting peace, resilience and sustainable prosperity through cooperation with all partners for the benefit of present and future generations.
Published by Armenpress, original at
—
Armenpress: Russia awaits agreement between Yerevan and Baku on the rotation o
Russia is awaiting agreement between Yerevan and Baku on the rotation for hosting future meetings of the foreign ministers of the participants in the 3+3 regional cooperation platform for the South Caucasus.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said this during her weekly briefing.
She recalled that the relevant understanding had been reached following the meeting held in Istanbul in October 2024.
“The participants in the first expert-level meeting of the 3+3 platform, held on 5 June 2026 on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, agreed that the focus should be placed on concrete mutually beneficial economic projects while avoiding the politicisation of the process. We fully share this approach,” Zakharova said.
She noted that the previous three meetings of the platform had been held in Moscow, Tehran and Istanbul, respectively.
The 3+3 format was established as a regional platform bringing together the three South Caucasus countries—Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia—and the three regional powers: Iran, Russia and Türkiye. Georgia has not participated in any meetings held within the framework of the platform.
Published by Armenpress, original at
—
Verelq: Pashinyan on the top of Khustup. After Artsakh, an evil omen?
The Public Tribunal has written many times that the new geopolitical realities emerging in the South Caucasus pose serious challenges for Armenia. Moreover, it is not only about Baku’s demands or the so-called “peace agenda”. We are talking about much deeper processes in which regional and superpower interests are involved.
Today it is already obvious that Syunik has become one of the key points of the conflict of these interests. Transport communications, corridors, extraterritorial regimes, new security architecture – all these concepts have long gone beyond the scope of mere diplomatic vocabulary and have become instruments of political pressure.
Against this background, Nikol Pashinyan’s decision to spend his vacation in Syunik and climb Khustup was remarkable.
For Armenians, Khustup is not just a mountain. It is a peak whose name is inextricably intertwined with Garegin Nzhdeh, the defense of Syunik, heroic resistance and national dignity. This is the shrine where rests the remains of a man who, at a crucial moment in history, was able to do what seems almost impossible today: to defend his native land against the superior forces of the enemy and the indifference of the outside world.
And Nikol Pashinyan is climbing that mountain.
That step itself could be perceived as a tribute to the memory of a great national figure. If there were no significant circumstances. There is a gulf between Nzhdeh and Pashinyan, which is measured not only by the difference in their political views, but also by the historical consequences of their activities. One remained in history as a defender of Armenian lands. The other as a leader, as a result of whose conscious and purposeful actions, Armenia lost Artsakh.
In politics, especially when it comes to Nikol Pashinyan, often not only the action is important, but also the context in which it takes place. Perhaps that is why the footage from Khustup leaves such a heavy impression. They remind not of the continuation of the Nzhdeh case, but of its rejection.
What’s more, we have enough reasons to treat such symbolic steps with particular caution. In the spring and summer of 2020, Pashinyan and his wife visited Artsakh with the same showiness. Photos were published, declarations of confidence and victory were made, the impression was created that the situation was completely under control. However, just a few months later, the 44-day war began, the consequences of which continue to weigh on Armenia to this day. And three years later, Artsakh was depopulated.
Of course, it is not about mysticism or superstition. History is made by decisions, not symbols. But sometimes symbols start to live a life of their own. Especially when they are followed by events that change the fate of the entire nation.
It is enough to remember the famous photo published by Anna Hakobyan on social networks in July 2023, with a cover with the inscription “A refugee brings with him not only a bundle of things to a new country”. . Two months later, as a result of the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh, tens of thousands of Armenians became refugees.
And here today, in the summer of 2026, when Syunik has once again appeared at the center of international discussions and regional calculations, the Prime Minister of Armenia climbs Khustup, the mountain of Nzhdeh.
I repeat, no one seriously claims that history is governed by signs or coincidences. However, it is equally difficult to ignore the fact that during the last eight years, too many symbolic episodes later received a completely different, often tragic, meaning.
That is why today we look at the photos taken from Khustup with concern. Because Garegin Nzhdeh went up to Syunik to protect him. And Nikol Pashinyan ascends to Khustup at a time when the fate of Syunik has again become the subject of geopolitical negotiations.
God forbid that this comparison will never be justified.
But let’s be honest before the same God. Eight years ago, few would have believed that Armenia would lose Artsakh. Five years ago, few would have believed that tens of thousands of Artsakh Armenians would become refugees. And if those seemingly unbelievable events are already history today, then no one has the right to say that the concerns about Syunik are exaggerated.
Nothing can be ruled out.
Armenian Public Tribunal
—
The start of large-scale printing of new biometric passports is given. Minister of Internal Affairs
The start of large-scale printing of new biometric passports is given. Minister of Internal Affairs Arpine Sargsyan informs about this on her social network page.
“I have one of the most secure documents in the world. It is the first sample of the new passport of us, the citizens of the Republic of Armenia.
Today I started large-scale printing,” the minister said in the published video.
—
Israel suspends parliamentary vote on recognizing Armenian WWI deaths as genoc
A month after the Israeli Cabinet approved the measure, the move comes at a delicate diplomatic moment as the region faces renewed turbulence.
A critical Israeli parliamentary vote on recognizing the violence against Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I as a genocide has been suspended, an Israeli official said Sunday.
The move comes at a delicate diplomatic time with the region facing renewed turbulence following the breakdown of a ceasefire with Iran over its persistent attacks in the Gulf. It also follows a NATO summit in Turkey last week at which Ankara pushed U.S. President Donald Trump to acquire American F-35 fighter jets.
The Israeli Cabinet had unanimously approved a proposal last month to classify the violence as genocide amid fast-deteriorating ties with Turkey over Erdogan’s inflammatory language against Israel, and a vote had been planned in the Israeli parliament to give final approval to the move.
The Israeli official told JNS on Sunday that the vote had been suspended.
The Knesset is set to go to summer recess at the end of the week and will be out of session until the Oct. 27 national elections.
A spokesman for Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, who put forward the proposal in the Cabinet last month, did not return calls or messages for comment on Sunday.
In the past, Israel has refrained from officially labelling the century-old violence as a genocide, but with relations with Turkey in free fall, it went ahead with the move in the Cabinet.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the violence against Armenians as a genocide, but until now no formal vote was ever taken on the issue.
Turkey, which has been one of the biggest critics in the world of Israel over the war in Gaza, called the Israeli cabinet move “politically motivated.”
A decision to freeze the parliamentary vote could be seen as part of an international effort to reduce tension between the two countries amid the regional turbulence.
Last month, Azerbaijan condemned the Israeli Cabinet’s recognition and urged the government to reverse the move.
The secular Shi’ite Muslim country has historic ties with both Turkey and Israel and has long worked to serve as an interlocutor between its two allies.
Azerbaijan’s position is both significant and sensitive for Israel as Jerusalem and Bakuhave long forged a strategic relationship rooted in a centuries-long affinity between the two nations which has blossomed into a robust security- and energy-related focus.
Three years ago, Azerbaijan made history by becoming the first Shi’ite Muslim country to open an embassy in Israel, defying threats of violence from Iran, and has maintained its staunch alliance with Israel throughout this time of regional wars.
—
As With Ireland, Changing Armenia’s Constitution Would Guarantee Long-Term Pe
By Dr. Taras Kuzio
Key Takeaways:
- EU and US policies in South Caucasus criticized: The EU is accused of micromanaging Armenia-Azerbaijan issues while the US focuses on trade; both fail to address Armenia’s constitutional territorial claims over Karabakh, which fueled past conflicts.
- Armenia should follow Ireland’s example: A referendum to amend its constitution and drop claims to Karabakh (similar to Ireland’s Good Friday Agreement) is needed for lasting peace, despite opposition from pro-Russian forces and the Armenian Apostolic Church.
- Risks of inaction: Leaving territorial claims in Armenia’s constitution risks empowering revanchism and Russian “divide and rule” tactics, perpetuating instability and economic stagnation in the region.
As Russia is fully preoccupied in fighting a losing war in Ukraine its power and influence in Eurasia more broadly and in the South Caucasus is in terminal decline which the European Union (EU) and the Donald Trump Administration are increasingly filling. While the US is focussed on economic growth and expanding trade, the EU is micromanaging questions that are best left to Armenia and Azerbaijan to resolve.
One of these questions is central to peace in the region: the need to introduce mechanisms to prevent the re-emergence of Armenian revanchism and irredentism. After all, in the late 1980s and early 1990s nationalist claims to a greater Armenia led to the occupation of one fifth of Azerbaijan territory for nearly three decades which was not reversed by diplomatic negotiations through the amorphous OSCE Minsk Group, which was closed last year, but by two wars in 2020 and 2023.
Armenia’s claim to Karabakh rests on how its constitution incorporates the country’s 1990 Declaration of Independence that explicitly endorses the 1989 joint decision by Armenia’s Supreme Soviet and the Karabakh Armenian National Council to “reunify” Karabakh with Armenia. The constitution’s preamble references the Declaration of Independence as a foundational document which therefore indirectly embeds an Armenian claim to Karabakh.
In 1991, Karabakh held an illegal referendum on its status which it used to declare independence and “reunify” with Armenia. Azerbaijan, the Unted Nations (UN) and the international community rejected this step, citing territorial integrity and uti possidetis; that is, the recognition of Soviet-era republican boundaries as international borders. On 21 December 1991 Armenia signed the Alma Ata Declaration at the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) summit which recognised republican boundaries as international borders.
Four UN Security Council resolutions which affirmed Azerbaijani sovereignty over Karabakh were each adopted unanimously in April (Resolution 822), July (Resolution 853), October (Resolution 874) and November (Resolution 884) 1993. Resolution 853 reaffirmed “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and of all other States in the region” and demanded “the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces” from Azerbaijani territories. Resolution 874 reaffirmed “the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory.”
None of the four UN resolutions mention “Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence” or granted the region a separate status. Each resolution consistently framed Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan’s sovereign territory and condemned the occupation of other Azerbaijani lands.
The self-declared “Republic of Artsakh” (Armenian name for Karabakh) was formally dissolved by Azerbaijan in January 2024.
The EU demanded, at the insistence of Greece, that Macedonia change its name to North Macedonia. Why is the EU therefore insisting that Azerbaijan drop its demand for Armenia to remove its territorial claims to Karabakh from its constitution?
EU and US weakness on Georgia, as seen after Russia’s 2008 invasion and recognition of the “independence” of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, has led to Tbilisi’s de facto belief these territories have been lost because of Western duplicity. This has led to despondency in Georgia about support for Georgia’s Western orientation and a gradual drifting back to Russia’s sphere of influence.
The EU should encourage Armenia to look tothe example of Ireland. The three-decade long sectarian conflict (dubbed “The Troubles”) ended with the 1998 Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement and Ireland holding a referendum change the constitution so that the Irish republic no longer laid territorial claim to Northern Ireland. The EU should assist Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to hold a similar referendum that would ask Armenians whether they supported changing their constitution as a step towards finalising a peace agreement with Azerbaijan.
The victory of Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party in the June parliamentary elections did not give him a two thirds majority in parliament and therefore his political force cannot unilaterally change the constitution. Nevertheless, Pashinyan was given a popular mandate to push ahead with a referendum.
Undoubtedly, a referendum in Armenia would face greater resistance than it did in Ireland. Pro-Russian Armenian parties, oligarchs like Samvel Karapetyan who made billions in Russia, and hierarchs in the Armenian Apostolic national Church are hostile to this constitutional change because they oppose any peace agreement with Azerbaijan. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is also happy for Armenia and Azerbaijan to continue their conflict as this would allow the Kremlin to implement its old strategy of “divide and rule.”
On 22 May 1998, voters in Ireland were asked whether they agreed to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. These two clauses had, since 1937, laid claim to the “national territory” of the whole island, thus including Northern Ireland. The referendum was held simultaneously with a parallel vote in Northern Ireland on the ratification of the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement signed the previous month.
The referendum question asked Irish voters whether they agreed to drop the constitutional assertion of sovereignty over the whole island and replace it with a more conciliatory aspiration to a united Ireland to be achieved only “by peaceful means, with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.” Unionists in Northern Ireland had long regarded the constitutional claim as provocative and giving ideological sustenance to nationalists and the IRA (Irish Republican Army).
The Irish referendum passed with a very large majority of 94.4 percent with only 5.6 percent opposed. In North Ireland, the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement was supported by 71 percent of voters.
High support for changing the Irish constitution cut across party lines and was supportive of peace and reconciliation taking precedence over what had been in effect a symbolic territorial claim; after all the Republic of Ireland had never intended to go to war with Britain over Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin and some Fianna Fáil “traditionalists” expressed reservations about the constitutional change; nevertheless, organised opposition was minimal and far less intense than in Irish referendums on abortion and same sex marriage.
The EU is mistaken in opposing the holding of a referendum on changing Armenia’s constitution. Leaving a territorial claim to Karabakh in Armenia’s constitution would embolden pro-Russian nationalist revanchism and irredentism and allow the Kremlin to continue its three decades long meddling in the South Caucasus which only brought bloodshed and economic stagnation. Only by removing the territorial claim will there emerge the chance of a sustained and durable peace in the South Caucasus.
—
Knesset vote on official recognition of Armenian Genocide postponed
For decades, successive Israeli governments refrained from officially recognizing the Armenian genocide, citing concerns over relations with both Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Israel has postponed a planned Knesset vote on formally recognizing the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire during World War I as genocide, according to an Israeli official.
The vote, which was expected to give final parliamentary approval to the measure after it was unanimously endorsed by the government last month, has been suspended amid heightened regional tensions.
According to the official, the legislation will not be brought forward before the end of the current parliamentary session.
The Knesset is scheduled to begin its summer recess at the end of the week and is not expected to reconvene before Israel’s legislative elections on October 27, 2026, effectively delaying a final decision for several months.
The postponement comes as relations between Israel and Turkey remain deeply strained over Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s repeated criticism of Israel since the start of the war in Gaza.
Diplomatic tensions have also intensified following renewed instability involving Iran and last week’s NATO summit in Turkey, where Ankara reportedly lobbied US President Trump to approve the sale of F-35 fighter jets.
For decades, successive Israeli governments refrained from officially recognizing the Armenian genocide, citing concerns over relations with both Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Although Prime Minister Netanyahu has previously referred to the events as genocide, the Knesset has never formally adopted such recognition.
The government’s unanimous approval of the proposal last month marked a significant policy shift, reflecting the continued deterioration in ties between Jerusalem and Ankara.
Turkey condemned the move as “politically motivated,” while Azerbaijan also criticized the decision and urged Israel to reverse its position.
—