The Article on Severe Insult is a Classic Example of How the Criminal Code Was Used for the Interests of One Political Party: Tatoyan

The former Human Rights Defender of Armenia, Arman Tatoyan, has addressed the issue of the article on severe insult in the Criminal Code. He stated, "The article on severe insult is a classic example of how the Criminal Code was directly used for the interests of one ruling party and allowed for a regression of democracy in our country. Insulting or offending a person is unacceptable under any circumstances, but such articles [specifically, Article 137.1] should not have been accepted in the Criminal Code at all. How could, just a few months prior, during the parliamentary election campaign, insults reach a peak, and then almost immediately afterward, the Criminal Code was used to fight against it? We have repeatedly pointed out that the wrong option was chosen for the fight, but there was a political decision. All professional opinions were ignored, and the Criminal Code was amended solely for the purpose of political decision-making. The project's justifications were superficial at best, ensuring only a formal legal background for implementing the political solution.

At the time of discussion in the National Assembly, members of the government and those in favor of the article themselves could not explain the meanings of its formulations. This article has turned into a provision that provides unacceptable protection for officials and politicians from citizens, even aggravating the criminal liability.

It poses a grave danger to personal freedom. Although no part of the article explicitly foresees imprisonment as a punishment, and therefore a person cannot be detained (as a preventive measure), there are instances where people are indeed arrested. There are cases where a journalist interviews a citizen, and then law enforcement unexpectedly goes and arrests that citizen for having given the interview. There are instances where citizens refuse to give interviews to journalists because they are unsure whether they would face criminal prosecution or be arrested. Both citizens and journalists are uncertain about the criteria law enforcement applies.

Even law enforcement officers have become victims of these political decisions, putting themselves at risk. How could everything be left to practice while opening the door to criminal prosecution against individuals through such an abstract article?

Today, there is a discriminatory and selective application of the Criminal Code. Those who claim otherwise either speak out of political considerations or are participants in the adoption of the article and are biased. It is utterly incomprehensible by what criteria law enforcement determines “targets,” as they themselves do not even know.

For instance, how does law enforcement decide, independently, without a victim of insult, that proceedings should be initiated based on certain words, while for other words they do not? Do they call the official, who has allegedly been insulted, and ask whether they feel offended by a particular citizen's expression, or do they perhaps try to guess if that official would be offended by the statement? Or does a specific officer put themselves in the position of the official and attempt to understand whether they would feel insulted, or is there an established list of words that law enforcement checks against?

The entire process remains completely closed and undisclosed. When submitting this application to the Constitutional Court, it was already known that cases were being initiated due to political interference. Wasn’t it clear that it would be impossible to apply this article to all instances of "insult or indecent defamation?" First of all, there aren't sufficient resources, and secondly, the article cannot effectively combat insults and defamations coming from abroad or from fake pages. This is akin to having a law against murder but not being able to apply it in all cases because there aren't enough human and technical resources, nor does anyone definitively know the implications of the article's formulations.

Moreover, the adoption of this article [137.1] in the Criminal Code was fraught with procedural gross errors, ignoring professional observations. Tomorrow the Constitutional Court will examine the constitutionality of this article, which I submitted back on October 13 of last year. At that time, it was a 67-page analysis, but now it would require several hundred pages to outline all the issues this article has caused. The Constitutional Court must recognize this article unconstitutional and instruct the Government and the National Assembly to properly fight the harmful phenomena of insult and defamation, rather than using the Criminal Code for political purposes. It is unimaginable to think about how constitutionality could be justified."