Expert: Civil Contract party lacks right to intervene in Church  matters, regardless of alleged canon violations

ArmInfo. No matter how many violations of internal church canons the ruling "Civil Contract" party in Armenia believes it has identified, it has no legal or moral right to interfere in internal church affairs, according to constitutional law expert Gohar Meloyan in her social media post.

She noted that the opposition has the right to hold a protest when  ruling deputies address the Catholicos of All Armenians by his  secular name. This, according to the expert, is not only  disrespectful to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and the  legal system, but also a manifestation of political immaturity or  deliberate harassment, as well as disrespect for the entire Armenian  people and Christians.  "Firstly, no matter how many violations of  internal church canons the Civil Contract party may perceive, it has  no right to interfere in internal church matters this is a  constitutional requirement.

Furthermore, unfortunately, they are not ordinary citizens, but  officials, and are obligated to adhere to this requirement. Any  interference not only constitutes disrespect for the national faith  and the institution of the Church, but is also illegal. Karekin II is  not only the secular name of the Catholicos of All Armenians, but  also the name indicated in his passport as a citizen of the Republic  of Armenia. In other words, a clearly established legal fact is  violated and distorted, which constitutes not only disrespect for the  national faith and the institution of the Church, but also disrespect  for the passport of a citizen of the Republic of Armenia and is  illegal. Canonical decisions of the Armenian Apostolic Holy  Church declaring a person defrocked and/or dismissing a diocesan  primate pertain to internal church matters, not civil law matters.   relations, which is also enshrined in international law," Gohar  Meloyan emphasized.

She recalled that, according to Article 17 of the Constitution,  religious organizations are separate from the state. According to  Article 41 of the Constitution, religious organizations are equal and  enjoy autonomy.  The Law "On Relations between the Republic of  Armenia and the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church" recognizes the  self-governance of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church within its  hierarchical structure.  The European Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms enshrines freedom of  thought, conscience, and religion.

In the ECHR decision in the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, the  court emphasized that religious communities have an autonomous  existence and that the role of the state must remain neutral. The  state cannot determine which religious leadership is legitimate  simply because it favors another. In the case of The Holy Synod of  the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Innocent) and Others v.  Bulgaria, the ECHR found a violation of Article 9, noting that  conflicts within religious communities must remain within the  jurisdiction of the religious community itself. In Mirolubovs and  Others v. Latvia, the ECHR also found a violation of Article 9,  characterizing the case as "state intervention in a conflict between  members of a religious community." The Court emphasized that the  state is obligated to maintain neutrality and impartiality and cannot  determine religious legitimacy or decide which religious group is  doctrinally correct. In Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v.  Milivojevic, the US Supreme Court ruled that civil courts cannot hear  a church dispute.

"The doctrine of church autonomy, shaped by judicial practice,  protects religious organizations from state interference in matters  of church governance, faith, and doctrine. And this approach is a  common thread running through numerous US Supreme Court decisions,  the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and similar cases  in various countries around the world," the expert noted.