Lawyers explain why Venice Commission reversed opinion on Armenian Criminal Code article

Armenian lawyers and opposition lawmakers revealed new details explaining why the Venice Commission initially endorsed and later condemned Article 236(2) of Armenia’s Criminal Code, which criminalizes material inducement to join or avoid rallies.

According to attorney Varazdat Harutyunyan, the Commission’s original positive opinion was based on an English translation that incorrectly inserted the term “to compel”, implying coercion. This misrepresentation led the body to consider the article compatible with international human rights norms. The Armenian version, however, contains no such reference, covering only material inducement, an act lawyers say cannot justifiably be criminalized.

The Constitutional Court suspended review of the article and sought the Commission’s advice after one-third of MPs challenged its constitutionality. The Venice Commission’s latest opinion upheld their concerns, finding that the law had been used to suppress opposition activity and restrict freedom of assembly.

The article has been applied against several political figures, including Hayakve co-founder Avetik Chalabyan and members of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF). Opposition MP Artsvik Minasyan said law enforcement used the vague provision to justify arrests and raids on party offices.

Harutyunyan added that in 2020, while Chalabyan was detained under this article, the government rushed to reintroduce the offense into a new criminal code set to take effect to continue prosecution of political opponents.

Attorney Vahe Grigoryan noted that legitimate organizational support for public gatherings, such as covering food or technical costs, had been treated as a crime. “The law’s vagueness allowed authorities to weaponized it against dissenters,” he said, echoing the Venice Commission’s conclusion that the article was incompatible with international standards.