Armen Ashotyan, Deputy Chairman of the Republican Party of Armenia, published several excerpts from an analysis of the situation in Armenia as part of the “Tracking Tyranny” project, implemented by the international organization Human Rights Foundation.
In Armenia, institutions are somewhat independent, but are often constrained by the government. This constraint is characterized by the executive branch’s manipulation of judicial oversight bodies and reform programs aimed at structurally undermining judicial autonomy.
Instead of direct coercion, the government uses administrative tools and vetting mechanisms to ignore independent lawyers, circumvent employment guarantees, and strengthen political control.
Courts often exert pressure on the government through judicial collusion, defined by systematically “approving” petitions for pretrial detention in politically sensitive cases, with the aim of suppressing dissent.
Members of the judiciary who make decisions contrary to government interests or are perceived as a threat to the ruling power are subject to criticism. This systemic pressure is disguised as “disciplinary responsibility,” with the executive branch using the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to selectively remove lawyers who publicly criticize judicial reforms or resist political influence.
Despite the recommendation of the Group of States against Corruption (GSC) to remove the Minister of Justice from the disciplinary process to ensure the separation of powers, the government is aggressively using this mechanism as a weapon. The Minister of Justice initiated proceedings that led to the termination of Judge David Harutyunyan’s mandate in July 2023—a punishment widely perceived by civil society as retaliation for his harsh criticism of the lack of independence of the Supreme Judicial Council and for calling the vetting process “unconstitutional.”
Similarly, the dismissal of Judge Anna Pilosyan for “significant disciplinary violations” was interpreted by independent observers as a selective application of the law against a judge known for her autonomy, while ignoring similar disciplinary violations by pro-government colleagues. These high-profile dismissals successfully created an “intimidation effect” within the judiciary.
Faced with the threat of immediate dismissal by the Supreme Judicial Council, which is dominated by political appointees, judges have become increasingly reluctant to make decisions that contradict the executive branch’s plans or the prosecutor’s demands in sensitive cases.
The government has subjected the judiciary to reforms that seriously undermine its independence and effectiveness. This structural erosion is driven by the executive branch’s attempts to circumvent job security guarantees and strengthen political control over the judiciary through legislative amendments.
Ignoring the principle of separation of powers, the administration adopted controversial amendments to the Judicial Code, significantly expanding the disciplinary powers of the Supreme Judicial Council and empowering the Minister of Justice, a politically appointed official, to initiate proceedings against judges. International organizations, including the Venice Commission and GRECO, warned that granting the executive such direct influence over judicial discipline created a structural conflict of interest.
The reform process, initially conceived as a way to combat corruption, played a decisive role in undermining the independence of the judiciary from within, creating a system in which judges are formally independent but operationally vulnerable to political removal.
The courts have often failed to cope with government attempts to suppress criticism or retaliate against those who openly oppose its most visible and widely publicized policies. This model of judicial collusion is characterized by the systematic “approval” of pretrial detention requests in politically sensitive cases, with judges prioritizing the stability of the executive branch over evidentiary standards in order to suppress the wave of protests.
Judges systematically granted prosecutorial requests to detain activists based solely on police testimony. This judicial collusion extended to the prosecution of religious leaders, as courts upheld the convictions of those who participated in the protests.