In a significant legal development in Armenia, a court has sentenced Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan to two years in prison following his conviction for publicly calling for the overthrow of the government. The decision, delivered by the court in Yerevan, marks a critical moment in the country’s current political climate, drawing widespread reactions from religious and political quarters.
The conviction stems from Ajapahyan’s arrest in June, which occurred amid a tense standoff at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin between security forces and the clergy. Following this arrest, he appeared before the Investigative Committee and was subsequently remanded into pretrial detention. Prosecutors charged him with inciting public calls to seize power and disrupt the constitutional order. The Armenian Apostolic Church has vocally condemned the verdict, interpreting it as part of what it describes as an ongoing “anti-church campaign” JURIST.
This legal action follows additional arrests over the summer, notably involving Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, who leads the Sacred Struggle movement, known for its protests against Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. The authorities have accused Galstanyan of being involved in a coup-related plot, a claim that his legal team denies.
Political tensions in Armenia have been mounting, particularly since the 2024 agreement with Azerbaijan over the transfer of control of several border villages. This decision, aimed at normalizing relations, has sparked significant domestic unrest, with groups like Sacred Struggle expanding their criticisms to broader government policies OC Media. Although a US-brokered peace agreement was initialed in August, it remains unsigned, leaving room for continued debate and protests within Armenia.
Ajapahyan’s legal team plans to appeal the conviction and sentence, utilizing provisions within the Armenian criminal procedure that allow challenges on legal and evidential grounds. The church has indicated its intention to pursue all available legal channels and initiate public advocacy efforts alongside Ajapahyan’s defense Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
This case represents a wider pattern of legal and political maneuvers within Armenia, reflecting the complexities and challenges facing its judicial and political systems amid ongoing regional and domestic pressures.