For more than a month, the courts have not published the verdicts in the cases of three clergymen.
Aramayis Takhmazyan (Fr. Tade), Stepan Asatryan (Fr. Aram), and Arman Saroyan (Bishop Gevorg Saroyan) are challenging in court the directives issued by Karekin II, Catholicos of All Armenians, regarding their removal from office. Court proceedings have concluded in all three cases, yet the verdicts were not announced within the prescribed timeframe.
On February 5, 2026, Aramayis Takhmazyan filed a claim with the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction of Armavir Province, seeking to invalidate Karekin II’s directive dated December 2, 2025—which had defrocked him as the spiritual pastor of the Talin region—and requesting reinstatement to his position.
Judge Hovhannes Melkonyan, who is presiding over the case, has also applied a measure to secure the claim. Under this ruling, the church and other parties were ordered to ensure—fully and without obstruction—Takhmazyan’s continued service as the spiritual pastor of the Talin region.
Although the proceedings have concluded and the verdict was scheduled to be announced on August 21, it has not yet been released.
Stepan Asatryan filed a claim with the same court on February 5, 2026. He seeks to invalidate the October 21, 2025, directive by Garegin II that removed him from his position as the spiritual pastor of Surb Hovhannavank, and requests reinstatement to the post.
In this case, Judge Sima Abovyan also issued an interim measure to secure the claim. The church and other parties were ordered to ensure Asatryan’s service at Surb Hovhannavank without obstruction pending the entry into legal force of the final court judgment. The verdict in this case was scheduled to be announced on August 17, but it has not yet been released.
In the third case, the plaintiff is Arman Saroyan, the former Primate of the Masyatsotn Diocese. He filed a lawsuit on January 15, seeking to invalidate the decree issued by Garegin II dismissing him from his position and requesting reinstatement as the Primate of the Masyatsotn Diocese.
Judge Edgar Hovhannisyan granted Saroyan’s motion for interim relief. The court ordered the Church and other parties not to obstruct him in the performance of his duties pending a final judicial ruling on the case.
The court also prohibited any actions that would hinder Saroyan from exercising his powers as the diocesan primate. This includes granting him the authority to manage the financial assets of the Masyatsotn Diocese and to conduct financial transactions. The verdict in this case was scheduled to be announced on August 14, but it, too, has not been released.
In fact, more than a month has passed since the scheduled dates for the announcement of verdicts in all three cases.
It is noteworthy that one of these three cases was heard by Edgar Hovhannisyan, a member of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). The SJC has repeatedly held judges disciplinarily liable for failing to provide judicial acts to the parties within the prescribed timeframe and for delayed publication.
Under these circumstances, the question arises: will the Ministry of Justice submit a motion to the SJC regarding the delay in the publication of judicial acts by the three judges, seeking to hold them disciplinarily liable? The Judicial Department informed *Hetq* that the verdict in the Aramayis Takhmazyan case will be announced next week, while the judge is still working on the verdict for the Stepan Asatryan case. As for the Arman Saroyan case, the Judicial Department stated that Judge Edgar Hovhannisyan has a heavy workload.The interim court ruling in the Saroyan case has also become the basis for the criminal case against Garegin II and six clergymen.
Arman Saroyan’s legal dispute extends beyond the mere issue of reinstating him to his position. It is precisely the events surrounding this case that led to charges being brought against the Catholicos of All Armenians, Garegin II, and six other high-ranking clergymen.
According to the charges, Saroyan had petitioned the court to invalidate the Catholicos's decree dismissing him from the position of Primate of the Masyatsotn Diocese, to reinstate him to the post, and to apply a measure securing the claim. The court granted the motion, prohibiting the church and other individuals from obstructing Saroyan in the performance of his duties, including the management of the diocese's financial resources. After the court decision and the writ of execution were served to the Mother See, the Supreme Spiritual Council assessed Saroyan’s statements as a severance of ties with the Mother See and a violation of the vow of obedience, and recommended that he be defrocked.
Karekin II accepted this recommendation. Saroyan was stripped of his clerical rank, thereby losing his authority as diocesan primate. According to the investigative body, these actions constituted a deliberate obstruction of the execution of the court’s decision. In addition to Karekin II, the following individuals are also accused of the same act: Archbishop Nathan Ohanisyan, Director of the External Relations and Protocol Department of the Mother See; Archbishop Haykazun-Vrezh Najaryan, Primate of the Armenian Diocese of Australia and New Zealand; Bishop Vahan Hovhanessian, Director of the Mother See’s Youth Training Program; Bishop Edgar Hakobyan, Primate of the Diocese of Syunik; Bishop Nelson Babayan, Director of the Mother See’s Administrative-Economic Department; and Bishop Artur Hakobyan, Primate of the Diocese of Gugark.
Thus, the legal dispute regarding Saroyan’s position—during which the court had temporarily allowed him to retain his post—has simultaneously become one of the pivotal elements of the criminal case against Karekin II and the six clergymen. And the final judicial act in that same civil case, which was supposed to be published in August, is still not available.
