Considering the events taking place in recent days and
the importance of strictly upholding guarantees related to religious freedoms
in this context, the Human Rights Defender demands that the competent state
bodies follow the relevant international guarantees related to religious
freedoms in all processes and strictly observe them in every situation.
Moreover, since the processes currently being carried out
by law enforcement agencies also concern representatives of the Armenian
Apostolic Church, all competent state bodies and officials should bear in mind
that the processes need to be carried out with the appropriate logic and
necessary public communication to avoid even the slightest public impression
that the religious beliefs of individuals are not respected or that criminal
legal processes are being carried out on the basis of religious beliefs. Public
communication regarding the aforementioned issues need to be carried out with
the necessary sensitivity.
Furthermore, all public discussions should be conducted
with a clear indication of respect for the autonomy of religious organizations.
Summarizing international legal approaches, including the case-law of the
European Court of Human Rights, the following key principles should be
highlighted:
The autonomous existence of religious communities is an
integral part of the pluralism of a democratic society. While it may be
necessary for the State to take steps to reconcile the interests of the
different religions and religious groups coexisting in a democratic society,
the State is obliged to remain neutral and impartial in the exercise of its
regulatory powers and in its relations with the various religions and
beliefs (Supreme Holy Council of the
Muslim Community v. Bulgaria).
The right of believers to freedom of religion, which
includes the right to manifest their faith jointly with others, implies that
they must be allowed to associate freely, without arbitrary interference by the
state. The autonomous existence of religious communities is an essential part
of pluralism and the very core of protecting the freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion. [Metropolitan
Church of Bessarabia v. Moldova]:
The state must respect the autonomy of communities
professing religion or belief while fulfilling its obligation to ensure access
to legal personality status for such communities.
The State must fulfil its obligations by ensuring that
national legislation enables a religious or belief community to determine for
itself the composition of its leadership, its internal rules, the substantive
nature of its beliefs, the structure of the community and the methods of
appointing its clergy, as well as its name and other symbols.
In particular, the State should refrain from a
substantive, rather than a formal, analysis of the statutes and nature of a
religious organization. Given that religious or belief communities may in
practice have a wide variety of organizational forms, a high level of
flexibility should be ensured within the framework of national legislation in
this area
(https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2014)023-e,
paragraph 31)։
The fundamental obligation to ensure rights, however, is
not limited to the requirement that states refrain from interfering with the
rights protected; it may also impose an obligation on states to take active
steps. For example, it may be necessary for authorities to provide “neutral mediation”
to help groups resolve internal disputes within religious communities.
When considering the proportionality of state
intervention, it is crucial to consider whether such intervention has crossed
the threshold of “neutral mediation,” which implies the expectation that the
community will be allowed to function without disruption and arbitrary
mediation by the state
(https://rilm.am/.../06/c0cc6f774cde32f8c6e3721e48dffaee.pdf, pages
31-32):
Therefore, the Human Rights Defender emphasizes that although
state intervention in the mentioned area is possible, it must be proportionate,
neutral and cannot be arbitrary in any situation, only in which case can the
autonomy of religious organizations be considered guaranteed.
Therefore, the Defender demands that the competent state
bodies and officials conduct all criminal legal proceedings in a manner and
with such public communication that not only the religious freedoms of
individuals and the restrictions in this regard are guaranteed, but also that the
public impression is not formed that the religious beliefs of individuals, the
autonomy of the Church are not respected, or criminal legal proceedings are
carried out on the basis of religious beliefs.
The Defender also demands that all public discussions be
conducted with respect for the autonomy of religious organizations. In this
context, the Human Rights Defender also attaches importance to the submission
of appropriate clarifications by the competent authorities on the extent to
which the standards presented in this position of the Human Rights Defender are
observed.
From the perspective of guaranteeing human rights and
religious freedoms, it is equally essential that religious organizations
themselves strictly adhere to human rights standards — especially in the fields
of legal equality and anti-discrimination.
International experience shows that in a number of
countries, the church has become a key player in instilling respect for human
rights values and standards in public life, and in excluding behavior that
contradicts these principles. Moreover, the guarantee of religious freedom is
possible exclusively in the context of mutual respect by religious
organizations towards each other and mutual respect for each other’s religious
freedoms.
The regular monitoring of the HRDO Staff, however,
indicates that certain types of prohibited speech — including those related to
religious freedoms — which are constantly condemned by the Defender, are used
by both officials, public figures, persons working in the legal field, and
representatives of the Church. These circumstances give rise to serious
concerns and forms false and distorted public perceptions from the perspective
of the field of equality, reinforcing the already distorted public
understandings on the issue.
From the perspective of the realization of the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the Human Rights Defender also
considers the manifestations of discriminatory speech by specific public actors
in Armenia on the basis of religious beliefs or the absence of such beliefs
(including discriminatory hate speech directed against atheists or people with
beliefs that differ from the religious beliefs of the majority of the public)
to be problematic.
Therefore, the Human Rights Defender, as an official
performing the function of promoting human rights in Armenia, demands that all
officials, public figures, and representatives of religious organizations
exclude the use of such speech and such activities that contain manifestations
that contradict modern standards of law, including those expressed in the form
of hate speech.
The Human Rights Defender reaffirms the position that
issues related to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion should be
regulated based on the principle of cooperation between the state and religious
organizations, while taking into account the permissible limits of the role of
each actor.
The Human Rights Defender will make a public statement
regarding its final position formed as a result of the analysis of all
circumstances related to the relevant processes.
Հայերեն
