Armenia’s Selective Prosecution of Opposition Figures Raises EU Relations Concerns
On 5 May 2024 a Yerevan district court sentenced veteran opposition activist Levon Harutyunyan to two years in prison on charges of “illegal possession of firearms.” The case has sparked protests in Yerevan and drawn criticism from local human‑rights groups. Brussels has so far limited its response to diplomatic notes, avoiding a public rebuke. The tension highlights a clash between Armenia’s internal security narrative and the EU’s push for democratic standards.
What happened: Arrests, charges and the legal process
The legal crackdown began in early March 2024 when the Armenian National Security Service (NSS) announced a series of raids on homes of opposition politicians linked to the My Step Alliance. According to a press release from the NSS, investigators seized “unauthorised weapons and communication devices” in the apartments of Levon Harutyunyan, former head of the Heritage Party, and his deputy, Anahit Sargsyan. The next day, Harutyunyan was detained under Article 166 of the Criminal Code, which criminalises possession of firearms without a licence. The court hearing on 5 May, reported by the Armenian Helsinki Committee, lasted just three hours before the judge delivered a guilty verdict and a two‑year sentence. The prosecutor, Aram Manukyan, argued that the weapons could be used to “undermine national security,” while the defence counsel, Lilit Avetisyan, claimed the evidence was fabricated. A small concrete detail noted by Human Rights Watch was that the alleged firearms were a single, non‑functional air‑gun found in a kitchen drawer. The case has been cited by several NGOs as part of a pattern of “selective prosecution” targeting vocal critics of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government.
Why it matters: Implications for EU‑Armenia partnership and civil liberties
The EU’s Eastern Partnership framework, signed in 2020, hinges on Armenia’s adherence to rule‑of‑law benchmarks, including independent judiciary and protection of political pluralism. Selective prosecution threatens those benchmarks by creating a chilling effect on dissent, which could stall the implementation of the EU‑Armenia Association Agreement slated for ratification in 2025. For ordinary Armenians, the risk is two‑fold: first, the erosion of trust in courts that appear to serve political ends; second, a possible slowdown in EU‑funded development projects that rely on good‑governance indicators. The European Commission’s 2023 progress report already warned that “persistent concerns over judicial independence could jeopardise future financial assistance.” Moreover, Brussels’ restrained language mirrors its approach during the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, where early criticism was muted to preserve diplomatic channels, a strategy later criticised for emboldening authoritarian tactics. If the EU continues to prioritise pragmatic engagement over principled pressure, it may repeat that misstep, undermining its credibility among civil‑society actors across the region. The situation also reverberates in neighboring Georgia, where opposition groups monitor Armenia’s legal handling as a cautionary tale for their own reforms.
“Human rights lawyer Lilit Avetisyan told reporters that the trial was “a clear signal that the state will use criminal law as a weapon against any dissent that challenges the current political narrative,” emphasizing the broader impact on freedom of expression.”
What we don’t know yet
Several key facts remain unclear as the case proceeds. First, the full inventory of seized items has not been made public; the NSS only released a summary that omits photographs of the alleged weapons. Second, the extent of coordination between the security services and the prosecutorial office is under investigation, but no formal inquiry has been launched. Third, it is unknown whether the European Union will shift from diplomatic notes to a formal statement, as the EU delegation in Yerevan has not disclosed its internal deliberations. Additionally, the opposition’s legal strategy may involve an appeal to the Constitutional Court, but the timeline for such a move is uncertain given procedural delays that have plagued similar cases in the past. Finally, the impact on upcoming local elections in October 2024 is speculative; analysts lack reliable polling data on voter sentiment after the arrests. These gaps leave observers unable to predict whether the prosecutions will consolidate power or provoke a broader backlash.
What to watch
In the next 24‑72 hours, three developments will likely shape the narrative. 1) A possible appeal filing by Harutyunyan’s defense team, which would trigger a review by the Yerevan Court of Appeals; the court’s docket for the upcoming week has already listed a hearing on 12 May. 2) Statements from the EU Delegation in Yerevan; diplomats are scheduled to meet with civil‑society representatives on 10 May, and any public comment could signal a shift from quiet diplomacy to overt criticism. 3) Street protests in Yerevan’s Freedom Square; organizers have announced a rally for 13 May demanding “fair trials and an end to political persecution.” Monitoring social‑media feeds and local news agencies such as Armenpress will provide real‑time insight into the scale of public mobilization. If the EU issues a formal condemnation, it could pressure Armenian authorities to reconsider the legal approach. Conversely, a muted EU response may embolden further arrests ahead of the October elections, potentially altering the political landscape.
Despite being a post‑Soviet state
