The recent sentencing of 18-year-old ethnic Armenian activist Gagik Grigoryan to seven years in prison in Russia has raised significant legal and procedural concerns. While the principle of the rule of law dictates that criminal charges must be adjudicated in accordance with legal norms, multiple irregularities suggest potential violations of due process and fair trial standards, as enshrined in international human rights law.

The Case Against Grigoryan

Grigoryan, a member of the "Left Socialist Action" movement, was convicted under five charges related to terrorist activities, including preparation for a terrorist act and treason, under Articles 205 and 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The court acquitted him on only one charge—arms smuggling. However, the lack of transparency in the trial proceedings raises concerns about adherence to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing. The trial was conducted behind closed doors, with media only permitted to attend the verdict announcement, restricting independent oversight and scrutiny.

Unanswered Questions and Procedural Irregularities

The handling of Grigoryan’s case raises fundamental questions regarding legal procedures. Reports indicate that Grigoryan’s detention began in 2023 when he was still a minor, yet details of his charges only became public in 2024. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) emphasize the need for appropriate procedural safeguards in cases involving minors. Furthermore, reports suggest that for nearly six months, his whereabouts remained unknown until another detainee at Lefortovo Detention Center identified him. Prolonged incommunicado detention contravenes international human rights norms, including Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary detention.

Additionally, Russian authorities and state-controlled media have provided no official details on the case, raising concerns about potential procedural violations. The secrecy surrounding the case is inconsistent with the principles of transparency and accountability in legal proceedings.

Political Implications and Activist Background

Grigoryan’s political activism further complicates the case. According to his parents, he had been engaged in political movements since the age of 16, joining the Russian Social-Democratic Youth Union and assisting independent candidates in local elections. His involvement in opposition activities raises the possibility that his prosecution may be politically motivated, in potential violation of Article 19 of the ICCPR, which guarantees freedom of expression and political participation.

Supporters of Grigoryan contend that the charges are unfounded and politically driven. The lack of open trial proceedings and restricted media access further intensify concerns that the case serves as a broader effort to discourage political dissent under the guise of national security.

A Call for Transparency

The opacity surrounding Grigoryan’s detention, the restricted public access to trial details, and the absence of independent verification of the charges highlight serious legal concerns. If the charges against him are substantiated, due process must be strictly observed to ensure that justice is served in accordance with international legal norms.

Given these circumstances, international legal bodies and human rights organizations should call for independent oversight of the case. Ensuring compliance with international human rights obligations, including those outlined in the ECHR and ICCPR, is essential to uphold fundamental legal principles. Until greater transparency is provided, concerns about the legitimacy of the proceedings will persist.