The state has no legal grounds to restrict freedom of speech, including in cases involving repatriated individuals or citizens who were previously held in captivity. This is stated by legal expert Anna Melikyan. According to her, regardless of the circumstances, these individuals enjoy the same right to express themselves as any other citizen.
The expert emphasizes that freedom of expression is guaranteed, and state authorities have no right to interfere even when the views expressed do not align with the positions of the authorities or segments of society.
Contradictions in state policy
According to Melikyan, recent years have seen an opposite trend, with the state not encouraging but effectively attempting to limit the public speech of repatriated individuals. She notes that an environment is being created in which interviews, public statements, or personal stories become undesirable—especially if they may provoke public debate.
At the same time, the expert stresses that these individuals, like all citizens, are free to decide for themselves whether to speak or remain silent. Given their vulnerable psychological state and traumatic experiences, choosing not to speak publicly may in many cases be a conscious decision made in their own interest. However, this choice must not be turned into coercion or enforced silence.
The role of the media and ethical boundaries
Special attention is given to the responsibility of the media. According to Melikyan, the issue is not only legal but deeply ethical. She recalls that the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit turning prisoners of war into objects of public interest—a rule that was widely violated, particularly during the 44-day war of 2020.
The expert notes that many videos disseminated by Azerbaijani sources and later appearing on Armenian social platforms contained not only degrading elements but also signs of war crimes. Careless distribution of such materials can cause serious harm both to the individuals concerned and to their families.
Evidence versus harm: a difficult balance
At the same time, Melikyan points to another equally important issue—the collection of evidence. According to her, for human rights organizations, such materials circulating on social media have often become key evidence in the process of filing international complaints regarding war crimes.
This creates a complex dilemma: on the one hand, protecting personal dignity and security; on the other, serving the interests of justice. The expert believes that each piece of material must be assessed individually, taking into account whether its dissemination or non-dissemination results in greater harm or greater benefit.
Responsible policy instead of sensationalism
Anna Melikyan considers it critically important for Armenian media outlets to have clear editorial policies when covering these issues. In her view, chasing sensationalism, scandal, or clickbait is unacceptable—especially when vulnerable individuals are involved.
She reminds that international platforms, including Meta, have clear regulations regarding content related to prisoners of war. In cases involving Armenian captives, there have even been instances where the issue was reviewed at the level of Meta’s Oversight Board, with decisions made based on the primacy of the interests of justice.
Post-captivity life and public pressure
In recent times, heightened public interest in the fate of repatriated individuals has often turned into excessive pressure, according to the expert. If a person does not take the initiative to speak publicly, this choice must be respected. At this stage, Melikyan stresses, the priority should be these individuals’ recovery, rest, and reintegration into society.
The expert emphasizes that this is precisely why the Geneva Conventions provide protection not only during captivity but also afterward—to prevent possible negative reactions in the individual’s home country. In this context, the responsibility of political and public figures is doubled: they are obliged to uphold ethical standards, refrain from interfering in private life, and avoid deepening an already difficult reintegration process.