- The Council of Europe’s “The European Commission for Democracy through Law” (the Venice Commission) issued an opinion on the crime of “materially incentivizing participation in an assembly“, highlighting among other shortcomings that it does not comply with the principle of legal certainty. In the past three years, this crime was used to prosecute a dozen opposition figures and citizens, many of whom were kept under detention.
- On January 10, 2024, the Armenian Center for Political Rights (ACPR) and the Helsinki Committee of Armenia published a joint report on the provisions of Article 236, part 2 of the RA Criminal Code, which criminalizes acts of “materially incentivizing participation in an assembly“. We had reasoned that criminalization of the said act does not meet international human rights standards and suggested to the RA Government and the National Assembly to submit it to the CoE Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR for expert opinion.
- International standards in the context of freedom of peaceful assembly are available in the “Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly” of the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR. According to the guidelines, practice of encouraged participation in assemblies (for example, where organizers provide free transport to an event to would-be participants) should not be subject to legal regulation unless the provision of such incentives would contravene laws imposing proportionate limits on campaign financing. Meanwhile, part 2 of Article 236 provides for criminal punishment for any material incentivization and in all contexts.
- Neither the government nor the National Assembly (NA) followed the suggestion, and the law continued to be applied. During that time, there was already the first conviction: Avetik Chalabyan, a public figure, whose defenders tried to dispute the constitutionality of the article, but the petitions to appeal to the RA Constitutional Court (CC) were rejected. Details on the political persecution of Chalabyan are available in the joint report mentioned above.
- On June 6, 2024, the report of the PACE Monitoring Commission was published, which covered the issue of part 2 of Article 236. The co-rapporteurs reaffirmed that incentivizing participation in rallies should not be criminalized unless it is related to an electoral campaign and the rules of its financing, and noted that they supported the recommendation of the Helsinki Committee of Armenia and the ACPR to the government to submit the law to the Venice Commission for expert opinion.
- Nevertheless, neither the government nor the NA applied to the Venice Commission. Instead, the NA opposition MPs appealed to the CC on the grounds of determining the compliance of part 2 of Article 236 with the Constitution.
- On October 11, 2024, the CC, after accepting the application of the opposition MPs, suspended the proceedings and turned to the Venice Commission to obtain an advisory opinion (amicus curiae). The CC addressed the commission with the following question: “Is the wording of part 2 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, specifically ‘materially incentivizing participation in or refraining from participation in an assembly’, compatible with European standards of the principle of legal certainty?”
- The opinion of the Venice Commission was presented on October 13, 2025. Elaborating on the incentives to attend gatherings, the committee made several important observations, including that it does not comply with the principle of legal certainty։
“In the case of part 2 of Article 236 (2) of the Armenian Criminal Code, the term “materially incentivising” is not formulated with sufficient precision to enable those potentially affected to understand their rights and obligations and thus regulate their conduct accordingly. A legal provision must be clear and unambiguous to avoid the risk of arbitrary application. The use of this ambiguous term could result in activities commonly associated with the organisation of peaceful assemblies, such as transport and organisational costs, being erroneously classified as criminal offences, thereby infringing the right to freedom of assembly. These activities should therefore be excluded from the scope of Article 236.”
- In addition to the issue of the principle of legal certainty, the Venice Commission also addressed “paid participation” in the context of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights:
“From the conclusion that “paid participation” is protected under Article 11 follows in the Commission’s view that the organisers of events who provide material incentives should not be prevented from doing so, which criminalisation clearly aims to do, at least to the extent that these incentives are directly related to making participation possible or easier. Part 2 of Article 236, therefore, should clearly exclude the prohibition of any such material incentives.”
“Human rights protection is an objective one; it covers the act of assembling itself while not touching upon the subjective reasons behind it. It would be a threat to the exercise of freedom of assembly if the authorities could decide which are the assemblies whose participants deserve protection based on intent․” - The commission also noted that “[l]ogistics support, such as transporting protesters, providing meals or accommodation, or covering costs for keynote speakers, is a standard part of organising a peaceful assembly“. Criminalizing such actions, let alone through a vague law, undermines the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
- While the Constitutional Court makes a decision taking into account the opinion of the Venice Commission, it is worth recalling that dozens of opposition politicians and citizens have been prosecuted due to the application of part 2 of Article 236. According to preliminary data collected by the ACPR, the following individuals have been deprived of their liberty due to these charges:
- Avetik Chalabyan, 3․5 months detention,
- Garnik Manukyan, 3 months detention,
- Narek Tevosyan, 1 month detention, 2 months house arrest,
- Vahe Danielyan, 4 months detention, 1 month house,
- Gerasim Vardanyan, 4 months detention, 1 month house arrest,
In addition to those mentioned above, a number of other citizens were prosecuted under part 2 of Article 236, including:
- 17 supporters of the “Tavush for motherland” (“Holy Struggle”) movement in 2024, with at least 2 of them put under detention, one under house arrest.
- 5 supporters of businessman Samvel Karapetyan in 2025, with at least 2 of them put under detention.
The Armenian Center for Political Rights is a watchdog organization focusing on detecting, responding, and preventing political persecu- tion and safeguarding political rights.
Read also
Armenian Center for Political Rights
1. Part 2 of Article 236 of the RA Criminal Code
2. “Joint Report”, Helsinki Committee of Armenia and Armenian Center for Political Rights, 10.01.2024. https://armhels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Joint_Report_HCA_ACPR_10.01.2024_EN_REVISED.pdf
3. Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (3rd ed.), Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, CDLAD(2019)017, para 52,https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2019)017rev-e
4. Ibid., paragraph 52
5. “The parliamentary opposition submitted an application to the CC. the question of the constitutionality of the article regarding the material interest in the participation of gatherings is disputed”, Factinfo, 07.08.2024, https://pastinfo.am/hy/news/2024/07/08/0gbx8feu4/1795040
6. The honoring of obligations and commitments by Armenia Report, Doc. 15994, Monitoring Committee, 06.06.2024, paragraph 104 https://pace.coe.int/en/files/33567/html
7. “The parliamentary opposition submitted an application to the Supreme Court…, Factinfo
8. See the procedural decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia ՍԴԱՈ-156, 11.10.2024, https://www.concourt.am/decision/decisions/670d20dd6e578_sdav-156.pdf
9. Armenia – Amicus curiae brief on the compatibility of Article 236 of the Criminal Code with the European standards on legal certainty, (CDL-AD(2025)037-e), https://www.coe.int/en/web/venice-commission/-/cdl-ad-2025-037-e
10. Ibid, para 41
11.Ibid, para 24
12. Ibid, para 19
13. Ibid, para 25
14. Gerasim Vardanyan’s case is possibly included here. See the statements of the Investigative Committee, https://www.investigative.am/news/boghoqi-akcianeri-yntacqoum-arerevouyt-hancavor-ararqneri-katarman-hamar-qreakan-hetapndoum-e-haroucvel-58-andzi-nkatmamb-29-andzi-nkatmamb-xapanman-mijoc-e-yntrvel-kalanqy-ampopoum
15. See the statement of the Investigative Committee, https://www.investigative.am/news/36562