Public Tribunal: Justice Based on the Principle of Political Expediency
An interesting picture is taking shape in Armenia today. When representatives of the authorities and those close to them speak for years about the rule of law, the fight against corruption, and zero tolerance for abuses, it sounds quite convincing. However, it is enough to place several specific cases side by side, and a considerably uglier reality begins to emerge behind the beautiful words. And at that point, the question arises not about the laws, but about the principles according to which they are applied.
Let us recall the case of Synergy International Systems. This is not about newspaper gossip or rumors circulating on social media, but about a criminal proceeding initiated in connection with a state tender conducted by the RA Ministry of Economy. The investigation claimed that ministry officials and company representatives had acted in coordination with the aim of ensuring the victory of a particular participant in the tender. Moreover, this was not a matter of minor or insignificant purchases, but a contract worth around one million dollars. According to the investigation’s version, preference was given to Synergy even after serious questions had arisen regarding the results of the tender, and the court subsequently declared the results of the tender invalid.
It would seem that this is precisely the kind of case that representatives of the current authorities had been speaking about for years from the podium of the National Assembly. A state contract, possible abuse of official powers, suspicions of creating preferential conditions for a particular company. But the most interesting part begins after that.
Among those charged in the case was Ani Gevorgyan, the wife of National Assembly Speaker Alen Simonyan’s brother. The investigation charged her together with other employees of the company. She was arrested and then released. What happened afterward deserves particular attention. Around seven dozen parliamentarians from the ruling party decided to petition for the release of the persons involved in the Synergy case. Ani Gevorgyan was also among those whose release was supported by the parliamentary majority.
Let us imagine the opposite situation for a moment. Suppose that a relative of one of the opposition leaders were involved in a criminal case concerning a state tender, while dozens of opposition faction members collectively appealed to the investigation and the court, asking for the preventive measure imposed on that person to be changed. There is no doubt about the uproar that pro-government propagandists would raise. For weeks, we would be told that pressure was being exerted on the justice system, that an attempt was being made to interfere with the investigation, and that old corrupt practices were once again raising their heads. Yet when it concerned a relative of the Speaker of Parliament, for some reason, no such assessments were voiced.
But the story did not end there. In June 2024, the Prosecutor’s Office terminated the criminal prosecution of a number of persons involved in the case, including Ani Gevorgyan. The basis was the so-called remorse. In other words, this was not about acquittal, recognition that the charges were unfounded, or a court establishing innocence. On the contrary, the Prosecutor’s Office explicitly stated that the criminal prosecution had been terminated after the accused had acknowledged the circumstances of the case and cooperated with the investigation.
This produces a rather peculiar picture. First, the investigation announces serious violations committed during the conduct of a state tender. Then a relative of the country’s second-ranking official becomes one of the defendants in the case. After that, dozens of ruling-party parliamentarians petition for the release of the accused. And some time later, the criminal prosecution is terminated on the basis of acknowledging the circumstances of the case and remorse. And all of this, naturally, is presented as a victory for the law.
Now let us consider another story.
Samvel Karapetyan was not accused of any manipulation related to state procurement. He was not suspected of organizing any scheme involving budgetary funds. His name did not appear in a criminal case concerning the distribution of a multimillion-dollar state contract. The basis for his criminal prosecution became a public statement in defense of the Armenian Apostolic Church amid the conflict that had arisen between the authorities and the Church. This was followed by his arrest, charges, and detention.
Here, there was no room for talk of remorse, the system’s remarkable flexibility, collective petitions by the parliamentary majority, or the humanity of the justice system. An entirely different mechanism was put into operation—swift, harsh, and without any sign of leniency.
That is precisely why the problem does not lie in individual criminal cases. The problem lies in the political philosophy of the current authorities. When it concerns people connected to the system of power, circumstances, nuances, mitigating factors, and procedural possibilities always emerge. But when it concerns those on the other side of the political barricades, it suddenly turns out that the state machine can operate with astonishing speed.
For a long time, we were convinced that after 2018 there would no longer be untouchables in Armenia. That the law would be the same for everyone. That being a member of the authorities would no longer be an advantage. Yet the Synergy case revealed an extremely uncomfortable question. If a relative of the Speaker of Parliament becomes a defendant in a criminal case concerning a state tender, and the criminal prosecution against her is subsequently terminated on the basis of acknowledging the circumstances of the case and cooperating with the investigation, then where does the line lie between the proclaimed equality before the law and political expediency?
The authorities prefer not to answer that question. Perhaps because it is too uncomfortable. After all, this is not about Ani Gevorgyan or Samvel Karapetyan specifically. It is about whether we have a legal system that is equal for everyone, or whether there is one system for those close to the authorities and another system for everyone else.