On October 16, 2025, Alexander Kochubayev, a member of the Chamber of Advocates of the Republic of Armenia, was detained by National Security Service officers and subsequently remanded in custody for two months by court decision the following day due to a Facebook post. The attorney is charged under Article 490, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia for publishing defamatory information about a judge, prosecutor, or investigator.
The method of the attorney’s detention is concerning – the use of disproportionate force by masked officers and the practice of forcing him to lie on the ground in a public place. The video published online clearly shows masked NSS officers forcibly removing the attorney from his vehicle and making him lie down on the drivable part of the road. Such conduct, considering the non-violent nature of the alleged offense, violates the legal principles of necessity and proportionality and may be assessed as a means of psychological pressure and a restriction on attorney independence.
Regarding the detention and arrest, the Armenian Lawyers Association notes:
- The Issue of Charge Legitimacy
The charge brought against the attorney does not correspond to his actions, as the post contains value judgments rather than factual data. The distinction between factual data and value judgments is established by ECtHR case law. For example, in Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia (2007), the ECtHR emphasized: “It has been the Court’s constant view that, while the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10 (see Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 28, § 46, and Morice v. France, judgment of 23 april 2015, § 126).”
Thus, Attorney Kochubayev’s Facebook post contains exclusively value judgments, which can be subject to legal assessment only within the framework of proper judicial examination to determine their potentially offensive nature. However, according to ECtHR case law, these expressions cannot be viewed as dissemination of factual information about a person and, consequently, are not subject to factual verification or proof. Based on this reasoning, the corpus delicti provided for in Article 490 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia is not applicable in this case, as the mandatory feature of the objective side of the act – the dissemination of factual data – is absent.
- The Issue of Proportionate Qualification
Even assuming that the attorney’s post contains elements of a criminally prosecutable act, according to the legal nature of the act and its factual circumstances, it could at most be qualified under Article 489 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia as contempt of court, which is legally classified as a minor offense.
- The Issue of Punishment Proportionality and Legitimacy of the Preventive Measure
According to Article 67, Part 5 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, a person who has committed a minor offense for the first time cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. Attorney Kochubayev has no prior convictions; therefore, even if his act were qualified under Article 489 and his guilt were established, the application of punishment in the form of imprisonment would be legally excluded. In this case, according to Article 188, Part 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, detention as a preventive measure for a person accused of a minor offense may be applied exclusively in cases where the accused has violated the conditions of an alternative preventive measure previously applied.
- Conclusion
From the above legal analysis, it follows that Attorney Kochubayev has been subjected to clearly illegitimate, arbitrary detention, which not only contradicts the requirements of domestic legislation but also fails to meet the standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality established by international law. In this case, the application of detention lacked any legal basis and reasonable justification.
The Association is deeply concerned about the growing trend of applying detention as a preventive measure in Armenia in recent years, which may serve as a tool for restricting public activity and disproportionately limiting the right to free expression.
Based on the above legal analysis, we call for:
- Reviewing the charge against A. Kochubayev, taking into account that value judgments cannot be qualified under the corpus delicti provided for in Article 490, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, as the mandatory feature of the objective side of the act – the dissemination of factual data – is absent.
- Reviewing the preventive measure applied against A. Kochubayev – detention – and replacing it with an alternative preventive measure in accordance with the standards of domestic and international law.
- In accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Armenia, impartially and objectively investigating the alleged case of disproportionate use of force during the detention and properly informing the public about the results of the investigation.
- Ensuring attorneys’ right to free and unhindered exercise of their professional activities in accordance with international standards, as well as excluding disproportionate restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.
Armenian Lawyers Association
October 17, 2025