The Constitutional Court's "slap" to Anahit Manasyan or the Human Rights Defender's double standard: "Zhoghovurd"

The “Zhoghovurd” daily writes: “The “Zhoghovurd” daily wrote months ago that proceedings had been initiated against Human Rights Defender Anahit Manasyan at the Corruption Prevention Commission.

In response to the daily’s inquiry, the Corruption Prevention Commission officially confirmed the information.

“The Commission, based on a citizen’s application, by its decision of September 30, 2025, initiated proceedings against the Human Rights Defender on the basis of an apparent violation of the rules of conduct, which are currently in progress.”

The Commission also noted that the proceedings concern sensitive data related to the personal and family lives of private individuals, therefore other details are not subject to publication. The “Zhoghovurd” daily is in possession of the materials of the proceedings, however, considering that the topic is of a personal nature, we refrain from publishing them.

The “Zhoghovurd” daily was informed that the investigation into the September 30 proceedings, as such, did not take place. The reason was not that the complaint was unfounded, or that the Corruption Prevention Commission had found that the Human Rights Defender had not committed any violations, but for a much simpler and, perhaps, absurd reason: there was simply no quorum in the commission, and the topic was closed.

It should be noted that neither the decision to initiate the September 30 proceedings nor its fate is posted on the website of the CC commission. What kind of constraint they have, the Human Rights Defender does not explain to the “Zhoghovurd” daily about the CC.

But this is where the most interesting part of the story begins.

What was the basis for the proceedings

The “Zhoghovurd” daily is aware that the citizen’s application concerned the fact that, according to the applicant, the Human Rights Defender Anahit Manasyan had gone beyond the scope of her constitutional powers and interfered in private family relations by conducting inquiries and engaging with structures located abroad.

In other words, the Corruption Prevention Commission was supposed to find out whether the Human Rights Defender had observed the rules of conduct and the limits of her powers.

However, before the commission made any decision, the Human Rights Defender decided to attack. On February 16, 2026, she applied to the highest, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia. The best lawyer of the Republic of Armenia, Anahit Manasyan, did not challenge the legality of the specific proceedings in the Constitutional Court, but rather the competence of the Corruption Prevention Commission to conduct such proceedings against her in general.

According to the Human Rights Defender, the Corruption Prevention Commission cannot demand explanations about its activities, examine its correspondence, or evaluate its decisions, as this interferes with the constitutional independence of the Human Rights Defender. In other words, the Human Rights Defender is independent and decides for himself whose rights to protect and how.However, the Constitutional Court did not even proceed to the substantive examination of the case. The court recorded that the Human Rights Defender applied to the Constitutional Court on the wrong legal basis.

The decision literally states:

“The Constitutional Court records that as a result of a comprehensive examination of the application, it becomes noticeable that the issues raised within its framework relate mainly to the independence of the Human Rights Defender.”

Then the court effectively rejected the entire legal structure of the Human Rights Defender.

“The applicant raises… a question of constitutionality in the context of guaranteeing the constitutional imperative of the independence of the Human Rights Defender, enshrined in Article 191 of the Constitution, trying to connect it with the exercise of the right to apply to the Human Rights Defender, enshrined in Article 52 of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the chain of reasoning presented in the application mainly relates to the justification of the regulations allegedly limiting the independence of the Human Rights Defender.”

And the final conclusion is more than clear.

“The Constitutional Court records that the application does not meet the requirements set forth in Article 169, Part 1, Clause 10 of the Constitution… Under such circumstances, the Constitutional Court finds that the Human Rights Defender is not authorized to apply to the Constitutional Court on the issues raised in this application.”

In other words, the Constitutional Court not only did not discuss the justifications provided by the Human Rights Defender, but also actually recorded that Anahit Manasyan tried to present the issue of her independence as an issue of a person’s right to apply to the Human Rights Defender, guaranteed by Article 52 of the Constitution, but the court did not see such a connection.

This was, in essence, a harsh procedural rejection or a slap in the face to Candidate of Law, Associate Professor Anahit Manasyan.

But the biggest contradiction in this story is elsewhere.

While the Human Rights Defender argued in the Constitutional Court that the Corruption Prevention Commission cannot interfere with its activities, the same Human Rights Defender adopted a completely different position when it came to the Armenian prisoner of war Ruben Vardanyan, who was illegally held in Baku.

Let us recall that Ruben Vardanyan had publicly appealed to the Human Rights Defender, asking him to deal with the protection of his rights.

In response, the Human Rights Defender’s office stated: “The powers of the Human Rights Defender extend exclusively to the processes of recording alleged human rights violations by state and local self-government bodies of the Republic of Armenia, regardless of the citizenship of the right holder.”

In other words, the Human Rights Defender himself declared that if the alleged violator is not a state or local self-government body of the Republic of Armenia, then he does not have the authority to deal with such cases.

And here the most important question arises.

If the Human Rights Defender states that he cannot deal with the issue of the rights of Ruben Vardanyan, who is illegally held in Azerbaijan, because it is beyond his authority, then how is it that in another case he was involved in private family relations, made inquiries and intervened in a family dispute abroad?

If in the first case the reasoning is the lack of authority, then in the second case on what legal basis were these actions carried out?

If, on the contrary, the Human Rights Defender has such broad authorities, then why are they not applied when it comes to the Armenian prisoner of war held in Azerbaijan?

These questions have not been answered to this day.

Let us hope that the Human Rights Defender will publicly clarify the issue related to these double standards.

Details in today's issue of the "Zhoghovurd" daily.