Catholicos of All Armenians Subject to Justification: Statement

The Catholicos of All Armenians and the clergymen of the Supreme Spiritual Council are subject to justification based on the lack of proof regarding the criminal unlawfulness of the act or the factual circumstances assigned to them. This statement has been released by Arthur Ghambaryan, Doctor of Legal Sciences, Professor, and Honored Lawyer of the Republic of Armenia, along with legal sciences candidates Zorair Harutyunyan, Artak Ghazaryan, and Grigor Chapanyan, a doctoral candidate at the Department of Criminal Law and Procedure at the Russian-Armenian University.

“Considering the significant public reverberation of the criminal prosecution initiated against the Catholicos of All Armenians and the members of the Supreme Spiritual Council, as well as its exceptional historical importance for the Armenian people and the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church, a group of legal experts, upon initiative, has drafted and presented to His Holiness and the Judge an Amicus Curiae conclusion for this case. The conclusion was prepared exclusively on the basis of legal analysis, devoid of political or other evaluations, and aims to promote the administration of justice.

The main theses are:

1. The act of 'deposing' is devoid of criminal unlawfulness. It is regulated exclusively by ecclesiastical canonical law and is outside the scope of regulation by state positive law.
2. Initiating criminal prosecution against the Catholicos of All Armenians and other clergy for the act of deposition is regarded as criminal intervention in the internal affairs of the Church and violates the principle of separation of Church and State guaranteed by the Constitution and international law, as well as the autonomy of religious organizations (Articles 17 and 41 of the RA Constitution, Article 9 of the ECHR, precedents established by the ECtHR, and positions of the Venice Commission).
3. The objective side of the crime is absent in the act attributed to the clergymen of the Supreme Spiritual Council (the specific act). They proposed to depose, which is not a final decision.
4. By initiating prosecution in this case, the requirements for legal certainty and predictability have been violated. In the court act regarding the application of precautionary measures, 'deposing' was not strictly prohibited, and it could not be interpreted through the intra legem analogia rule, thus the limits of criminal liability became clear only later, which contradicts the principles of certainty and legality of criminal law.
5. Alternative argument: Even in the presence of formal elements of a crime, the act attributed to persons in this case is of low danger (Article 16, Part 2 of the RA Criminal Procedure Code). Arman Saroyan continued his activities as the head of the diocese after being declared depose, wearing episcopal vestments and sitting in the office of the head. Furthermore, the state continued to recognize him as a high-ranking representative of the Church; by the decree No. 251-A of the RA Prime Minister, Arman (T. Gevorg the Bishop) Saroyan was included in the advisory commission discussing pardon issues as a representative of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church. This circumstance clearly indicates that the act did not hinder the normal functioning of justice and, therefore, from the perspective of the constitutional principle of proportionality, it cannot serve as a basis for criminal liability.

CONCLUSION
The Catholicos of All Armenians and the clergymen of the Supreme Spiritual Council are subject to justification based on the lack of proof regarding the criminal unlawfulness of the act or the factual circumstances assigned to them.

Arthur Ghambaryan, Doctor of Legal Sciences, Professor, Honored Lawyer of the Republic of Armenia
Artak Ghazaryan, Candidate of Legal Sciences
Zorair Harutyunyan, Candidate of Legal Sciences
Grigor Chapanyan, Doctoral Candidate at the Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, Russian-Armenian University.