As was revealed during the trial for Archbishop Michael, a vicious practice is widespread in penitentiary institutions. Penitentiary staff examine (censor) documents provided by lawyers to detained clients. Moreover, if the transferred materials, in the opinion of the penitentiary staff, are not directly related to the criminal case, they confiscate them from the detainee. Archbishop Michael’s lawyer, Ara Zohrabyan, wrote about this on his Facebook page.
“I raised this issue after learning that the materials I provided to Archbishop Michael were examined by penitentiary staff.
I filed a complaint with the court of first instance, which was signed by Judge Masis Melkonyan, who arrested Archbishop Michael. As expected from Masis Melkonyan, he found no violations and dismissed my complaint.
On October 6, 2025, Judge Lusine Abgaryan of the Criminal Court of Appeals of the Republic of Armenia upheld my complaint, overturning Judge Masis Melkonyan’s decision and confirming the violation of Archbishop Mikael’s rights and legitimate interests. The Court of Appeals also ordered the head of the Yerevan-Kentron Penitentiary Institution to take measures to eliminate the documented violations.
The Court of Appeals’ decision is an important judicial act aimed at eliminating this vicious practice.
I will quote a few excerpts from the decision:
“…Thus, the Court of Appeals notes that the law establishes certain guarantees for the unimpeded exercise of a lawyer’s professional activities in a penitentiary institution or other institution under state protection.” Such guarantees include, in particular, the right of the accused to confidential meetings with their defense attorney, to review documents and materials related to criminal proceedings or the protection of their rights and legitimate interests. These guarantees are not an end in themselves: they are intended to ensure the normal functioning of the lawyer and the full realization of the rights of anyone in need of legal assistance.
“…In the context of the above, the Court of Appeal considers it necessary to note that the definition of attorney-client privilege given in the RA Law “On Advocacy” implies that there is a presumption of attorney-client privilege. Therefore, it is logical that the right of the lawyer and their client to unimpeded access, designed to ensure the protection of attorney-client privilege, also extends to any form of communication between them, including correspondence or other correspondence, under which the administration of the penitentiary institution and the institution’s staff, in light of the requirements of the RA Law “On Advocacy,” are obligated to create separate, unimpeded, and isolated conditions for the lawyer and client.”
“…The Court of Appeal finds that the administration and staff of the penitentiary institution were not authorized to inspect lawyer A. The contents of the documents handed over by Zohrabyan to his client, Mikael (Gevork) Ajapayan, therefore, in this case, there was a violation of the right to defense of the detainee, Mikael (Gevork) Ajapayan, guaranteed by the Convention, the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia.
P.S. I can provide a copy of the ruling to my fellow lawyers (via personal message or in the comments; please provide your email address, and I will send it to you),” he wrote.