Arthur Osipyan Detained for Asking Pashinyan Questions: Three Charges, No Logic
A man asks the prime minister questions on video. Pashinyan agrees to answer. But Osipyan is charged with obstruction of a campaign. The absurdity is the point.
The case of Arthur Osipyan exemplifies how Armenia’s investigative bodies frame lawful democratic participation as crime. In a recent interaction captured on video, Osipyan approached Pashinyan at a public event and asked, politely, “May I ask you some questions?” Pashinyan responded, “Of course, dear,” and the two engaged in dialogue. The conversation continued on Pashinyan’s initiative. At no point was Osipyan physically detaining or preventing the prime minister from leaving. When Pashinyan’s bodyguards and supporters eventually removed Osipyan, the initiative was theirs, not his. Osipyan was subsequently arrested and charged with three offenses: obstruction of an election campaign, hooliganism, and hate speech.
Each charge exemplifies how investigative bodies stretch legal categories beyond recognition to criminalize dissent. The obstruction charge is absurd on its face: Pashinyan explicitly consented to the conversation and could have left at any moment. Rafael Ishkhanyan notes that investigative bodies appear to search for whatever legal article might fit, and when one fails, they switch to another. This is exactly what happened with an earlier blogger arrested under hate speech who was later re-charged with hooliganism, a charge so stretched it has lost all legal meaning. The hooliganism charge against Osipyan reflects this same debasement: hooliganism in Armenian law now encompasses insults, defamation, and any conduct authorities dislike, rendering it a catch-all. The primary charge, however, is hate speech under Articles 329 and 330. Osipyan made Facebook posts criticizing Pashinyan with rhetorical threats, common in Armenian political discourse. Authorities labeled this hate speech, cementing a systemic distortion: criticism of political conduct is being reframed as discrimination against the politician’s political views.
Osipyan remains detained and has been on hunger strike for over two weeks. The contrast between his detention and the government’s own threats against opposition figures underscores the selective application of these laws.
Transcript
Asbed: Rafael, Asbed: the ACPR's June 3 report on hate speech examines Arthur Osipyan's case, Asbed: which is a recent thing that went viral, Asbed: actually. Asbed: The report argues that the Investigative Committee treated this public questioning Asbed: of Pashinyan as obstruction of an election campaign. Asbed: But the report says that the video shows that Pashinyan agreed to answer Osipyan's Asbed: questions and that the exchange ended only when Pashinyan's guards and supporters Asbed: removed him. Asbed: We have some concerns here. Asbed: Are investigative bodies informing the public, Asbed: informing investigations, Asbed: or are they helping frame critics as criminals during the campaign? Rafael: When it comes to certain situations, of course, they're doing the second. Rafael: They're just trying to find whichever, you know, legal Rafael: Let's say, I don't know, article or argument would fit. Rafael: And sometimes when they mismatch, they change it. Rafael: For instance, before Osipyan's case, there was another case. Rafael: I think a blogger, Rafael: not very well known in a political arena, Rafael: but however, Rafael: he did some quite harsh remarks about Pashinyan, Rafael: calling him to [unclear], Rafael: to have some, Rafael: you know, Rafael: this manly conversation. Rafael: So they actually Rafael: They arrested him and detained him based on another hate speech law, Rafael: spreading intolerance and inciting hatred or intolerance based on some protected