The Investigative Committee's 'Bubble' and Partial 'Red Lines': Suren Surenyants on Argam Abrahamyan's Case

Political scientist Suren Surenyants has stated: "The Investigative Committee's 'bubble' and partial 'red lines' Former MP and ex-Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamyan's son Argam Abrahamyan rejects the charges against him related to the alleged ordering of the murder of Solomon Vlasyan in 2023.

His lawyers have announced that Abrahamyan does not recognize himself as guilty and has absolutely no connection to the act attributed to him. Moreover, the defense considers the charge so unfounded that at this stage they do not even find it necessary to comment on it in detail.

I have no grounds to unconditionally believe the statement issued by the Investigative Committee. Furthermore, I have reasonable doubt that the Investigative Committee's sensational announcement regarding Argam Abrahamyan's arrest may be yet another 'bubble'. In recent years, society has repeatedly witnessed how pre-investigation bodies presented sensational cases as 'solved' even at the investigative stage, only for many questions to arise later concerning those confident declarations.

In a rule of law state, guilt is determined by the court, not by the press release of the Investigative Committee. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental guarantee of fair trial. It is enshrined in both Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. Consequently, the pre-investigation body is obliged to communicate about ongoing proceedings with such moderation that, until the final court ruling, no biased perception of a person's guilt is formed in the public.

In this respect, the wording of the Investigative Committee's announcement raises at least serious questions. The case has been presented almost as fully solved, while the case of the direct perpetrator of the murder (G.H.) has still not reached court until 2024, and at that time Argam Abrahamyan’s name had not been mentioned in public announcements. The sudden emergence of the *'complete picture'* three years later naturally raises questions.

However, the most disgusting part of this story lies elsewhere. It concerns the public circulation of Emma Tsarukyan’s name and insinuations about her personal life, in the genre of false claims and gossip. If the woman is not attributed any criminal act, what was the necessity of including her name in the official announcement about the murder? What legal purpose was pursued by the publication of *'personal relationships'* and *'large sums of money'* formulations?

Such false and unnecessary formulations inevitably breed assumptions, gossip, and manipulations regarding a person's private life in public space. And when the source of all this is not the yellow press or an anonymous Telegram channel, but a state body of the Republic of Armenia, the problem becomes much more serious.

The Investigative Committee has no right to make any woman's private life a subject of public discussion in the name of informing the public about a criminal proceeding, especially if she is not attributed any criminal act. This is not a matter of professional negligence. This is a question of respect for human dignity, personal life, and the permissible boundaries of behavior by state bodies.

The right to respect for one’s private and family life is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. Any intervention by state bodies in that sphere should have a clear legal basis, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate.

For this reason, the Human Rights Defender Anahit Manasyan publicly condemned the Investigative Committee's approach as unacceptable. The HR defender clearly stated that unnecessary publication of information relating to individuals' personal and family life within the framework of a criminal proceeding is impermissible, and raised the question of what legal purpose is pursued by such information publication.

Therefore, the Investigative Committee must clarify why it was necessary for Emma Tsarukyan’s name to appear in that announcement, and what investigative or public interest required the publication of a reference to her personal life.

What has taken place is hard to interpret in any other way than as the public targeting of a person and their prestigious family. And it is here that the official announcement about the criminal proceeding begins to create the impression of being a tool of psychological pressure.

Moreover, the Investigative Committee has also disseminated a ‘dramatic’ video of the arrest, where masked personnel burst into a home and lay the accused on the floor. Such elements of 'show' further strengthen the impression that the pre-investigation has partially turned into a tool of public influence.

The state is obliged to uncover crimes, including the most serious ones. But that obligation gives it no privilege to turn people’s dignity, honor, and private life into *'incidental damage'* in the pre-investigation. Pre-investigation and its statements should not become a mandate for publicly discrediting individuals. Should a state body cross that line, the issue of accountability becomes inevitable. Sooner or later, not only the authors of such texts but also the officials approving them, their departmental leaders, and possibly, if political interference is confirmed, political leaders must answer for this.

Acting in the name of the state is not a circumstance that absolves from responsibility. On the contrary, it significantly increases the responsibility.

PS: By the way, credible information is circulating about Solomon Vlasyan's dark past that casts doubt on his having had any *'personal relationships'* with any individual. More on this at another occasion.