Arshak Archbishop Khachatryan, Chancellor of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, has not been recognized as a victim in the criminal investigation related to a video allegedly depicting him, his lawyer Arsen Babayan told Pastinfo.
Babayan stated that the archbishop had initially made clear that under the legal article used to initiate proceedings—violation of privacy—he cannot be classified as a victim, as the video content does not involve him.
“The case is based on an article related to violating private life, but Archbishop Arshak has said the video has no connection to him, so there’s no breach of his privacy. Instead, he believes he was harmed by the spread of hostility and hatred toward him and the Church. We have asked that this angle be investigated,” Babayan said.
He added that he has no information about whether the Investigative Committee has conducted a forensic examination of the video.
Responding to whether it was coincidental that the report was filed by Daniel Ionnisyan, Babayan said it is evident that Ionnisyan is close to the authorities and supports their agenda.
“If Ionnisyan had an objective reason for filing the report, he wouldn’t have insisted it be pursued under that specific article. Knowing that Archbishop Arshak denies any connection to the video, he could have simply asked for a factual investigation, not claiming that someone violated the archbishop’s privacy. This makes it clear he’s part of the broader process by which the government seeks to portray him as a victim,” Babayan stated.
Asked whether the video was solely targeted at Archbishop Arshak, Babayan argued that his image was used within a wider campaign against the Church.
“Given who Archbishop Arshak is, it’s no coincidence he was targeted. It’s natural he would be among the victims of this criminal campaign against the Church. This episode is clearly part of the broader unlawful attacks launched against it,” the lawyer concluded.
On the night of October 25, the Telegram channel “ArmenianWikileaks” published intimate videos allegedly featuring Archbishop Arshak with a woman. The archbishop responded sarcastically. The criminal complaint was not filed by him, but by the Union of Informed Citizens, citing a gross violation of private life. After four days in the prosecutor’s office, the case was transferred to the Investigative Committee and launched under Article 204, Part 3, Clause 2 of the Criminal Code—violation of privacy using special technical means for secret data collection.
