The recent publication of videos showing the arrests of opposition figures, former officials and people close to them should be viewed not only through the actions of law enforcement agencies but also in the broader context of fundamental human rights and the overall functioning of Armenia’s justice system. This was stated by Levon Barseghyan, program coordinator at the Asparez Journalists’ Club in Gyumri.
The Problem Is Not Recording an Arrest but Publishing It
According to Barseghyan, the fact that law enforcement agencies record arrests is not in itself problematic.
On the contrary, video documentation is necessary so that it can later be determined whether force was used against a detainee, whether injuries were inflicted or whether other violations occurred during the arrest.
“The issue is not the technique or technology of the arrest. As far as one can tell from those recordings, law enforcement officers are acting within their authority. The issue is the publication of those videos,” he said.
Barseghyan noted that publishing footage of law enforcement operations, particularly when the content is humiliating, is not a new phenomenon.
However, he argued that the state must be guided not by the political sympathies or antipathies of parts of society but by the principle of protecting fundamental human rights.
He also recalled the presumption of innocence, stressing that a defendant’s guilt can only be established by a final court judgment that has entered into legal force.
“Whether a person is guilty or not will be determined by a final court ruling. Until then, people are innocent. This is what the presumption of innocence means,” Barseghyan said.
Publishing Personal Data Is Unacceptable
In Barseghyan’s assessment, even more problematic than publishing arrest footage is the disclosure of an accused person’s private information.
He said that even if a court later finds someone guilty of the alleged crime, this does not justify publishing information concerning family members, religious affiliation or private life.
“How does a case benefit from publishing personal data? Information about family members, a religious organization and so on? This is absolutely unacceptable, condemnable and inadmissible,” he said, referring to an official publication concerning the arrest of Agram Abrahamyan.
Barseghyan believes this practice may continue until the country’s top political leadership publicly demands an end to such publications and insists on respect for fundamental rights regardless of a person’s status.
He also considers discussions between human rights organizations and state institutions necessary in order to establish appropriate standards for such law enforcement practices.
“This Is Selective Justice”
Barseghyan’s broader concern, however, goes beyond the publication of arrest footage. He argues that numerous indications of selective justice have accumulated in Armenia over recent years.
“This is not new, and it is not the first time I have said that over the past several years we have received numerous pieces of evidence and indications of selective justice,” he said.
According to Barseghyan, the public cannot determine whether the same standards are applied to all suspects and people accused of comparable offenses or whether law enforcement practices vary according to political affiliation.
“The public cannot understand whether this is a standard applied to everyone — all suspects and all people accused of similar crimes — or not. Is there a correlation between being in the opposition or in government and such accusations and arrests? To me, it is obvious that this is selective justice,” he said.
The Example of Robert Kocharyan
As an example supporting his argument, Barseghyan pointed to the circumstances surrounding former Armenian President Robert Kocharyan’s participation in presidential elections.
According to him, Kocharyan ran for president in 1998 and 2003 after submitting false documentation to the Central Electoral Commission, yet Armenia’s law enforcement system did not initiate criminal proceedings over the matter.
Barseghyan questioned why legal proceedings are not launched in such cases even if they might later be closed because the statute of limitations has expired.
“Why, for example, does Armenia’s law enforcement system — whether it is the Anti-Corruption Committee or another body — not initiate such a criminal case? Bring charges, and then decide whether to close it because of the statute of limitations, whether to impose a preventive measure and so on,” he said.
In his assessment, the issue is not solely whether a particular person should be prosecuted but whether the same legal standards are applied to everyone.
“There Is No Such Thing as a Little Justice”
According to Barseghyan, when law enforcement authorities find grounds to arrest and detain a person in one case but fail to react in comparable cases, the public has legitimate grounds to suspect selective justice.
“In one case, a person remains untouched. In another, they decide there are grounds, arrest the person and bring them in,” he said.
Barseghyan argued that a justice system cannot function only partially.
“This is selective or random justice, incomplete justice, in simple terms. There is no such thing as a little justice. Either justice exists or it does not. Everything else is selective, accidental or luck-based justice,” Levon Barseghyan concluded.