Prosecutor's Office Unsure How to Handle Publication Accusing Archbishop of Serious Crime

The Republic of Armenia's Prosecutor General's Office has not yet determined how to address the report of a crime based on false accusations against Bishop Bagrat Galstanyan, the leader of the Diocese of Tavush of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Specifically, the 'Tavush for the Homeland' movement has filed a criminal complaint demanding that within 24 hours, either a criminal case be initiated against Bishop Bagrat or the journalist from the pro-government 'Civic News' media outlet be held accountable for false accusations.

The journalist in question has made baseless accusations and slanders against the bishop, alleging that he is a 'Russian KGB agent, has received millions of dollars from the Kremlin, and incited a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan.' According to the complaint, the statements made in a video by the journalist lack journalistic professionalism and ethical standards, resembling more of a monologue from a blogger rather than credible journalism. The claims suggest alleged 'evidence' that the bishop has 'received millions of dollars.' This, the movement argues, amounts to a report of a particularly serious crime.

According to Article 173, Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Armenia, a publication made by the media serves as grounds for initiating a criminal case. The movement has thus demanded that within 24 hours, either Bishop Bagrat be brought to criminal responsibility or the individual representing himself as a journalist and his video posted on the 'Civic News' channel on YouTube be subjected to criminal liability under Article 476 of the RA Criminal Code for false accusations.

Factinfo has reached out to the Republic of Armenia's Prosecutor General's Office to clarify whether the report has been processed in accordance with the law, but the office has requested a written inquiry to answer such a simple question. This indicates that the Prosecutor's Office is yet to decide how to proceed with the report and has opted to delay until 'instructions' are given. Ultimately, if a case is initiated, they will have to acknowledge the falsehoods of the pro-government journalist, raising the issue of his criminal liability.