The Zhoghovurd daily writes: “Before leaving for Bishkek, former Speaker of the National Assembly Alen Simonyan seems to be trying to re-edit the political picture formed around his previous statements about Russia.
It is no coincidence that during this period, Nikol Pashinyan’s family media outlet published news about the legal dispute between Alen Simonyan and the Zhoghovurd daily, emphasizing that the court had obliged the media outlet to refute the statements attributed to Simonyan about the destruction of Russia. (Armtimes.com)
However, there is a whole story behind the published judicial act, about which the government media outlet is silent.
What did Zhoghovurd write
On January 28, 2025, the Zhoghovurd daily published “VIDEO. Alen Simonyan is waiting for the collapse of Russia, noting that it will open new prospects: details from the closed session” article.
The issue was about the meeting on January 23 between Alen Simonyan and the heads and representatives of the parliaments of the Nordic-Baltic Eight format.
The source of “Zhoghovurd”, a parliamentary representative of one of the Baltic countries who participated in the meeting, reported that during the closed meeting Simonyan made strongly anti-Russian assessments. According to our publication, the topic was the defeat and possible collapse of Russia and the new prospects for Armenia and the Baltic countries as a result.
Even before the publication, “Zhoghovurd” had also contacted Alen Simonyan’s spokesperson, presenting the information and giving him the opportunity to respond. The answer was that the NA Speaker had not made such statements. In other words, the official position of Simonyan’s side was also presented in the material.
After the publication, Alen Simonyan demanded a refutation, then went to court.
And where is the recording of the closed meeting?
During the legal dispute, a key issue for the “Zhoghovurd” daily was to find out what Alen Simonyan had actually said during the closed meeting.
The editorial board had requested a video or recording of the meeting from the National Assembly, which could have definitively answered this question. However, it was not provided to “Zhoghovurd”.
In other words, the editorial board was deprived of the opportunity to present the most direct evidence to the court.
“Zhoghovurd”, however, found another person present at the meeting, Artur Khachatryan, a deputy of the NA “Armenia” faction.
Khachatryan confirmed in a video interview with “Zhoghovurd” that during the closed meeting, Alen Simonyan did indeed utter rather harsh words against the Russian Federation.
However, this circumstance did not become the subject of a full examination in court either. Artur Khachatryan was not heard in court as a person present at the meeting, which would have made it possible to clarify the real content of the closed meeting in court, and the court did not request a recording or video recording of the meeting from the National Assembly at all.
Therefore, the question remains: if there is an official recording or video recording of the closed meeting, why did it not become the main evidence for resolving the dispute?
What did the court decide?
Judge Liana Nersisyan partially satisfied Alen Simonyan's claim.
We read that the court obliged "Zhoghovurd Newspaper Editorial Office" LLC to deny that the formulations about the "defeat, defeat, and disappearance" of Russia and the opening of "good prospects" for Armenia and the Baltic countries as a result do not correspond to reality.
The court rejected Alen Simonyan's claim in the remaining part.
Only 20 thousand drams should be recovered from "Zhoghovurd Newspaper Editorial Office" LLC in favor of Alen Simonyan as the amount of the previously paid state duty.
Instead, the court demands and recovers 150 thousand drams from Alen Simonyan in favor of "Zhoghovurd Newspaper Editorial Office" LLC as a reasonable attorney's fee.
That is, the simplified picture presented in the publications, “Alen Simonyan defeated “Zhoghovurd”, does not fully reflect the content of the judicial act: the claim was partially satisfied, the remaining claims were rejected, and the legal costs recovered from Simonyan in favor of the editorial office many times exceed the amount recovered from the editorial office in favor of him.
Why just before Bishkek
The chronology is also noteworthy in this whole story.
A number of statements made by Alen Simonyan against Russia during his political activity have repeatedly received a response in Russian political and information circles. And now, on the eve of his departure to Bishkek and contacts with Russian colleagues, Nikol Pashinyan’s family media outlet is specially circulating the judicial act titled “Alen Simonyan did not want the destruction of Russia”. (Armtimes.com)
According to the assessment of the daily "Zhoghovurd", the chronology of the publication has a political connotation.
One gets the impression that before the meetings with Russian colleagues in Bishkek, an attempt is being made to clear the trail of the anti-Russian political discourse that has developed around Alen Simonyan over the years and to present him not as a figure who speaks from a hostile position towards Russia, but as a supporter of partnership relations.
However, one question remains unanswered.
If the publication of "Zhoghovurd" did not fully correspond to reality, then why was the video or recording of the closed meeting not published and provided to the editorial office in order to close the issue once and for all in 2025?
And why was the testimony of MP Artur Khachatryan, who was present at the meeting, not heard in court?
More details in today's issue of the newspaper
