Lawyer Ara Zohrabyan writes on his Facebook page:
“The preliminary hearing session in the criminal case against His Holiness Karekin II, Catholicos of All Armenians, and six bishops and archbishops, members of the Supreme Spiritual Council, has been scheduled for August 28, 2026, at 4:30 p.m. It will take place at the Vagharshapat courthouse (15 Saint Grigor Lusavorich Street, Echmiadzin), presided over by Judge S. Rushanyan.
The Catholicos of All Armenians and the bishops (archbishops) will not appear at this court session in accordance with Part 4 of Article 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia. The defense attorneys will participate in the session.
I would like to remind you that according to the indictment, the Catholicos of All Armenians declared the former Bishop Gevorg Saroyan a deposed bishop, and it was this deposed bishop that was qualified by the indictment as an obstacle to the execution of the judicial act.
Therefore, the first and main legal question before the court should be the following: can declaring a bishop a deposed bishop, as an independent spiritual-canonical act, be recognized as a criminally punishable “obstacle”?
The Constitution and laws of Armenia establish for the state not only a general requirement of neutrality, but also a direct obligation not to enter the sphere of internal governance and canonical life of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church.
The ordination of a bishop, the maintenance of his spiritual status, disciplinary responsibility, and deposed bishop are the key elements of this internal life.
The state does not ordain a bishop.
The state does not grant episcopal titles.
The state does not determine the compliance of a clergyman's conduct with the rules of the Church.
Therefore, the state cannot decide whether a specific person, regardless of the decision of the highest canonical authority of the Church, should continue to be considered a bishop or not.
When the state connects the authority to declare a bishop to be incompetent with the obstruction of a secular judicial act, the state reserves to itself the authority to finally determine the spiritual status. In other words, it interferes and makes the content of the spiritual authority a subject of discussion. This is a direct example of prohibited interference. In this case, the degree of interference is even higher, since the threat of criminal liability is applied,” he wrote.
