Armenian Association of Judges urges SJC to exercise restraint amid disciplinary proceedings

The Armenian Association of Judges on Friday called on the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to exercise restraint and uphold standards appropriate to members of the judiciary as disciplinary proceedings continue against judge Davit Harutyunyan.

The case follows a ruling by the Constitutional Court that annulled a 2023 decision to dismiss Harutyunyan, prompting the Supreme Judicial Council to reopen and review his case.

In a statement, the Association of Judges said that in Harutyunyan’s case, as well as in similar proceedings involving judges Suren Antonyan and Artur Stepanyan, the SJC failed to comply with the Constitutional Court’s order and the requirements of Article 157(9) of the Judicial Code.

According to the association, after overturning its own unlawful decisions, the SJC declined to reinstate the judges to their previous positions. Instead, it proceeded to examine disciplinary cases against them through procedures not prescribed by law, without restoring their judicial status, rights, or guarantees.

The Association of Judges also criticized remarks made during a February 20 session of the SJC by its non-judge member, who described Armenia’s judicial system between 2011 and 2023 as “corrupt from top to bottom – from appointments and dismissals to the pricing of judicial acts.” The member reportedly cited the “international community” and unspecified reports by international organizations as the basis for those claims.

During the same session, the council member asked Harutyunyan, who was subjected to disciplinary action in 2023 for allegedly abusing his freedom of expression by criticizing the SJC, whether he considered such assessments to be an attack on the judiciary and, if so, why he had not publicly challenged those reports.

On February 23, the SJC ruled that the member’s statements were lawful and did not give rise to an appearance of bias, stating that the remarks were based on international reports, which it described as “not authoritative for the SJC,” the association said.

The Armenian Association of Judges argued that neither international nor domestic bodies had issued assessments containing such sweeping conclusions about Armenia’s judiciary, noting that the SJC’s decision did not reference any specific report. Even if such a report existed, the association said, it could not justify statements damaging the reputation of the judiciary.

The union further stated that while the SJC had previously disciplined judges for remarks critical of the council or processes affecting judicial independence, it had in 2026 allowed statements from its own platform that, in its view, exceeded the bounds of permissible criticism and contained elements of insult and institutional discredit.

“Given that the SJC has already unanimously assessed the conduct in question, raising the issue of individual members’ responsibility appears futile,” the association said. Nevertheless, it urged the Supreme Judicial Council to remain consistent and to demonstrate restraint and conduct befitting members of the judiciary particularly during hearings.