In recent times, discussions and conflicting opinions have become more frequent regarding the relationship between the authorities and the Armenian Apostolic Church. Although the topic has a clear political subtext, it is primarily a matter of the legal plane: the Constitution of Armenia and the legislation of the Republic of Armenia clearly define the Church’s exceptional status and the principle of non-interference by the state. Therefore, if the situation is viewed purely from a legal standpoint, any administrative or political pressure on church structures or clergy can be assessed as a violation of the constitutional order. Former judge of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia Alvina Gyulumyan expressed her opinion on the created situation.
Attempts to Replace the Catholicos Are Themselves an Interference
According to Gyulumyan, attempts to replace the Catholicos of All Armenians are in themselves an interference in church affairs:
“This is nothing other than, so to speak, the seizure of a church structure; it is a gross interference in the internal affairs of the church.”
She reminded that in such situations, international experience is unequivocal. The European Court of Human Rights has handled numerous cases related to similar issues. For example, the Romanian Orthodox Church appealed to the courts demanding the return of those churches and land plots that were forcibly seized by the state during the years of communist rule.
“The European Court found violations when national courts rejected the return of church property. And this was about property seized by the state from the church under the communists,” Gyulumyan noted.
According to her, there are also precedents concerning the Armenian Church—in cases against Turkey: “We have a case related to the demand for the return of church property of the Armenian Apostolic Church. This case reached the European Court, and the decision was made in favor of the Church.”
Gyulumyan regretfully noted that Armenia is now in the reverse process. If back then the church was fighting to regain its property, today the state is essentially trying to take away what still remains.
“And I would truly be surprised by any judge who, in the case of such a lawsuit, tried to issue a different ruling, given the precedent-setting decisions of the European Court,” she emphasized.
Both the Principles Underlying the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence Are Irreversible
Commenting on the authorities’ steps aimed at changing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Gyulumyan noted that the principles underlying both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are immutable: they cannot be changed. “They can perhaps be changed only if the so-called fourth republic is created,” she stressed.
Gyulumyan noted that international experience is instructive in this matter. She recalled her work at the European Court, pointing out that during the first cases with her participation, she was always struck by the consistency of the Baltic judges.
“If you look at the cases against Lithuania and Latvia, you will see that they consistently insisted that the case materials state not ‘after gaining independence,’ but ‘after restoring independence.’ I was surprised, honestly, why they fought so diligently for that word. But then it became clear: they wanted to emphasize that they were not created from scratch, but continued their statehood,” she recounted.
According to Gyulumyan, this was a very profound approach, which also helped these countries achieve those conclusions from the European Court in some cases that corresponded to the interests of their states.
“Unfortunately, we not only failed to restore our independence—what we had during the First Republic—but are now also trying not to continue what exists. And the continuity of the state, in my opinion, is one of the elements of a state’s strength. You cannot say: I was created from scratch. That means you consider everything else not yours or erase it,” she concluded.