A long-standing problem remains deeply rooted in Armenia’s judicial system: pretrial detention is often used not as an exceptional measure, but as a primary and punitive instrument. Human rights advocates have been raising concerns about this practice for years.
One of the most widely discussed recent examples is the detention and arrest of Artsakh public figure Artur Osipyan following an incident that occurred on May 18 during Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s election campaign event in the Arabkir district of Yerevan.
Osipyan has been on a hunger strike for more than a week, while representatives of the human rights community describe the prosecution against him as unlawful and politically motivated.
Arthur Sakunts, head of the Vanadzor office of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly, explained why the use of detention in this and similar cases is disproportionate and why the system is failing to deliver fair justice.
Political Context and Disproportionate Response
Speaking about the incident involving Osipyan, Sakunts stressed that sharp questions and heated exchanges from citizens during election campaigns are a natural part of democratic political life.
A political force conducting a campaign cannot expect only supportive reactions from the public.
“Even if we assume that the altercation could qualify as a violation under the Criminal Code, such as hooliganism, the matter should first have been considered as an administrative offense. But even if law enforcement agencies viewed it as a criminal act, why did the investigator request detention and why did the court approve it? This is unjustified and disproportionate,” Sakunts argued.
According to him, the issue extends far beyond political cases and reflects a broader systemic crisis.
Although Armenia’s new Criminal Procedure Code expanded the range of preventive measures, including house arrest, bail, and travel restrictions, courts continue to rely primarily on detention.
A Systemic Concern
Sakunts noted that serious concerns about this practice have also been voiced within the Council of Europe.
One particularly troubling indicator is that the number of individuals held in pretrial detention exceeds the number of convicted prisoners.
“Even in ordinary cases completely unrelated to politics, courts continue to use detention more frequently than any other preventive measure. This should concern the judiciary itself and the Supreme Judicial Council. The practice must change fundamentally,” he said.
The Letter of the Law Versus Arbitrary Practice
The human rights advocate emphasized that detention should be used only as a last resort.
Courts are expected to review all available alternatives and conclude that none of them can effectively address the risks involved before ordering detention.
The main legal grounds include the risk of absconding, obstructing an investigation, influencing witnesses, or committing a new offense.
According to Sakunts, none of these risks appear significant in the case of Artur Osipyan, who is a publicly known figure and unlikely to evade investigators.
He also questioned the standard two-month detention period often applied in such cases.
If a person is accused over a single public incident requiring only basic investigative actions, Sakunts argues that isolating that individual for sixty days appears excessive and difficult to justify.
The Boundary Between Criticism and Incitement
Sakunts also addressed the legal distinction between political criticism and calls for violence.
Incitement involves language aimed at encouraging physical harm, hatred, hostility, or actions against a specific individual or group.
By contrast, critical speech, even when harsh or offensive, should not result in criminal detention if it does not involve calls for violence or physical action against a person, family members, or supporters.
He stressed that such rhetoric is undesirable in political life, but warned that statements about “putting someone in prison” or labeling individuals as “spies” are particularly problematic when used by government officials.
“Saying ‘I will imprison him’ is not simply harsh rhetoric. It is a threat and an abuse of authority. You are not a court and you are not a law enforcement agency. Only a court can deprive a person of liberty or declare someone a spy, and only on the basis of objective evidence,” he stated.
Presumption of Innocence Must Remain Fundamental
Sakunts concluded by reminding that one of the core principles of a democratic state is the presumption of innocence.
Every person must be considered innocent until proven guilty by a final court ruling.
In his view, as long as detention continues to be used as a form of preliminary punishment, it remains premature to speak about a fully independent judiciary in Armenia.