Constitutional Court Will Deliver Political Ruling, Not Legal Justice
This court is 100% packed with Civil Contract appointees. Nobody expects a legal ruling. They'll deliver a political one.
This clip captures a critical moment in Armenia’s post-election crisis: Ambassador Dziunik Aghajanian’s candid assessment of the Constitutional Court’s credibility. With all judges appointed by Civil Contract, Aghajanian argues that no fair legal judgment is possible. She notes that even the appointment process itself violated Armenia’s constitution and laws, setting the precedent for what will follow.
Aghajanian emphasizes that public opinion has already rendered its own verdict: the June 7, 2026 parliamentary elections were fraudulent, with estimates ranging from 160,000 to over 300,000 votes violated. Despite international statements claiming the elections reflected the will of the people, Aghajanian argues the public understands that this government lacks legitimacy regardless of what the court decides.
Aghajanian suggests that the government needs a three-fifths parliamentary majority to pass constitutional changes that would allow a new constitution to be adopted by parliament rather than through a required public referendum. By invalidating three precincts without holding revotes, the government removed Prosperous Armenia from parliament, securing the majority it needs. This strategic election management, combined with a packed court, signals that the coming ruling will serve political interests rather than constitutional law. For Armenians watching this unfold, the court’s decision-whatever it may be-has already lost legitimacy in the public mind.
Transcript
Asbed: The story well ambassador let's turn our attention Asbed: To Armenia's post parliamentary election limbo sort of we we are currently Asbed: In we probably don't need to litigate Asbed: The entire election campaign election day we we know where we are and at this point Asbed: The Constitutional Court is hearing appeals from seven political parties challenging Asbed: The June 7 election results. Asbed: The court case turns on several questions, Asbed: Whether the vote was free and fair, Asbed: Whether the invalidation of three precincts changed the composition of Asbed: The parliament or the incoming parliament, Asbed: And whether the broader climate of arrest, Asbed: Pressure, Asbed: Selective justice before, Asbed: During and continue until today made the election fraudulent. Asbed: What would you expect from this Constitutional Court? Asbed: Do you expect a legal ruling? Asbed: Do you expect a political one? Asbed: Actually, Asbed: What kind of a fair outcome do you expect from a court that is 100% packed Asbed: With Civil Contract appointees? Dziunik: Well, you rightfully mentioned that no one is expecting any kind of fair ruling Dziunik: From this particular Constitutional Court that was packed by the appointees Dziunik: From this Dziunik: Political party and even the process of appointment was done in violation of