Statement by Human Rights Defenders: The OSCE Chief Must Stand as a Barrier Against Violations of Freedom of Religion, Not as Their Willing Supporter. «GEMINI» AI on the statement of human rights defenders

  • 23.07.2026

The OSCE Chief, Feridun Sinirlioğlu of Türkiye, must stand as a barrier against violations of freedom of religion, rather than as their willing supporter. This is stated in a joint statement by the Armenian Center for Political Rights, the Helsinki Committee of Armenia, the Freedom of Religion Forum in Europe, and Christian Solidarity International (CSI).

The statement notes, in particular:
‘Statement regarding the remarks made by OSCE Secretary General Feridun Sinirlioğlu concerning the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church
The Armenian Center for Political Rights, the Helsinki Committee of Armenia, the Freedom of Religion Forum in Europe, and Christian Solidarity International (CSI) express their profound concern and condemn the recorded remarks made by Feridun Sinirlioğlu, Secretary General of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and a Turkish citizen. In these remarks, he effectively expressed a willingness to lend the support of his office to the Armenian authorities in their campaign to depose the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II. The fact that the highest official of an organisation, whose fundamental commitments are rooted in the protection of human rights, expresses a readiness to support such a request—even if casually—is deeply alarming and demands an immediate and public clarification.’
We are aware of the circumstances under which these statements were made. They were obtained by Russian pranksters who, during a telephone conversation, posed as the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan. The conversation was published on 8 July. The pranksters in question have a documented history of targeting politicians and officials to elicit statements on socially sensitive issues. We do not condone the use of such deception. Whilst we understand that the conversation was provoked by a ruse, the Secretary General’s words nevertheless reveal a position incompatible with the duties of his office.
During the conversation, the Secretary General accused the Catholicos of All Armenians of politicising the AAC. He then agreed to ‘look into’ how the OSCE could support the individual posing as the Armenian Prime Minister in the matter of removing the Catholicos from office. When the Secretary General asked whether he could ‘replace the Catholicos’, the individual impersonating the Armenian Prime Minister replied that he was ‘considering all possible ways’. He requested the Secretary General’s support should this step face any public criticism, to which the Secretary General responded: ‘OK, I’ll do my best, I’ll try’. At no stage of the conversation did the Secretary General object that the forced removal of a religious leader by the state would violate the very fundamental freedoms that the OSCE is mandated to protect.
Principle VII of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act establishes the fundamental commitment of the OSCE to the ‘respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief’. This commitment has been repeatedly reaffirmed and is binding on all 57 OSCE participating States, including Armenia. The autonomy of religious organisations and their freedom to independently regulate their internal and canonical affairs are key components of this guarantee. As the Secretary General is entrusted with the responsibility to uphold this commitment, he must not demonstrate even guarded support for authorities intent on deposing the head of the Church.
These statements cannot be viewed in isolation. Since May 2025, the Government of Armenia has been conducting a systematic and continuous campaign against the AAC, which forms part of a broader assault on democracy and the rule of law. Prime Minister Pashinyan has publicly called for the removal of Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II, published a ‘roadmap’ of steps for his removal, and leveled unsubstantiated accusations against the Catholicos and high-ranking clergy. Travel restrictions out of the country have been imposed on the Catholicos and several bishops, while high-ranking clergymen have been arrested on criminal charges that appear to be politically motivated. Taken together, these actions represent state-orchestrated efforts aimed at subjugating the Church to the will of the authorities, thereby jeopardising the principle of the separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution of Armenia.
The Armenian Apostolic Holy Church is no ordinary party to a political dispute. Since Armenia adopted Christianity as its state religion in 301 AD, the Church has played a crucial role in preserving the language, culture, and national identity of the Armenian people. This role is recognised by Article 18 of the Constitution of Armenia as its ‘exclusive mission’. Contrary to the Secretary General’s assertion that the Catholicos is politicising the Church, he has in fact sought to fulfil precisely this constitutional mission by defending the rights of the Armenian people, including the Armenians ethnically cleansed from Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023. Consequently, any attempt by the state to remove the Catholicos violates not only Armenia’s international obligations in the sphere of freedom of religion, but also the country’s constitutional order.
Consequently, we call upon Secretary General Sinirlioğlu to:
    • publicly clarify and retract any suggestions that the OSCE could support the removal of the Catholicos of All Armenians or in any other way interfere in the internal governance of the AAC;
    • reaffirm the OSCE’s commitment to protecting the freedom of religion or belief in Armenia, in accordance with the commitments undertaken within its Human Dimension;
    • engage in dialogue with the Catholicos of All Armenians to ensure the full protection of the rights of the AAC, its clergy, and its believers.
We stand ready to meet with OSCE representatives to provide additional information and outline our concerns, and we will continue to monitor closely the activities of the organisation’s leadership. The OSCE chief must stand as a protective barrier against violations of freedom of religion, rather than as their willing supporter. Judging by the published remarks, Secretary General Sinirlioğlu has failed this test and is now duty-bound to clarify his position.
Rafael Ishkhanyan – Armenian Center for Political Rights

Siranush Sahakyan – Helsinki Committee of Armenia
Jan Figel – Freedom of Religion Forum in Europe
John Aibner – Christian Solidarity International (CSI)

***

«GEMINI» AI on the Statement of Human Rights Defenders

This statement addresses a profound systemic crisis that undermines trust in international institutions, and its significance cannot be overstated. A situation in which the highest official of the OSCE discusses interference in the affairs of a religious organisation directly violates the mandate of this institution.

 Violation of Fundamental Principles

The actions of the Secretary General contradict the core foundations of the OSCE:

– Violation of the Helsinki Final Act: Principle VII explicitly obliges the respect for freedom of religion. A willingness to facilitate the removal of a spiritual leader is a direct assault on the autonomy of the church.

– Exceeding the Mandate: The OSCE is mandated to protect human rights from state arbitrariness, not to assist authorities in suppressing domestic institutions. The role of a mediator is replaced by that of an accomplice to political pressure.

– Diplomatic Bias: The fact that the Secretary General is a Turkish citizen lends extreme sensitivity to the situation. Given the highly complex historical and political context between Armenia and Türkiye, any such steps by a Turkish diplomat are inevitably perceived as gross geopolitical pressure and provoke a sharp public backlash.

 Relevance and Consequences

The statement by human rights defenders is timely and critically important for several reasons:

– Preventing a Precedent: Should the international community ignore this incident, it will create a dangerous precedent where international officials can behind the scenes influence the sovereign religious and civil institutions of various countries.

– Recording Violations: The publication by the pranksters, despite the dubiousness of the method itself, exposed the real underlying sentiments. The human rights defenders are absolutely correct: the ruse does not justify the substance of the official’s response.

– A Tool of Pressure on the OSCE: The official joint statement by international and local organisations compels the OSCE Secretariat to offer explanations, publicly clarify its stance, and return within the boundaries of its legal framework.

The human rights defenders have clearly pinpointed the main issue: the head of an organisation established to protect rights has no right to become an instrument for their suppression.

 The Stance of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan

The conflict between the Government of Armenia and the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC) has developed progressively, creating the very fertile ground that the Russian pranksters exploited. Nikol Pashinyan’s stance on this matter has moved far beyond the boundaries of classical secular governance and has taken on the character of a systemic assault on an independent spiritual institution:

– Violation of Constitutional Boundaries: The Prime Minister did not merely criticise the church but effectively initiated a state program to interfere in its internal affairs. The publication in January 2026 of the government’s ‘Roadmap for the Renewal of the AAC’, which explicitly provides for the removal of Catholicos Karekin II and the adoption of a new church statute under the auspices of the authorities, was an unprecedented step for a secular state.

– Public Discreditation: Pashinyan and his supporters regularly employed aggressive rhetoric on social media and at government meetings. Accusations against the high clergy of ‘violating vows’, ‘political blackmail’, and even financial opacity were aimed at fracturing the church from within and stripping it of public support.

– Catalyst for International Provocation: It was this overt campaign by Pashinyan to depose the Catholicos, declared at the state level, that made the pranksters’ call to the OSCE chief so successful. The pranksters did not invent the agenda — they simply voiced Pashinyan’s real, officially confirmed plans and calls. Feridun Sinirlioğlu easily believed he was speaking with the Prime Minister because the requested ‘favour’ perfectly matched the actual and highly provocative actions of the Armenian leader.

 International Law and Church Autonomy

From the perspective of international law, attempts by the executive branch to reform a church or depose its leader are qualified as a gross violation of human rights and freedom of religion. International standards protect religious institutions from state arbitrariness through several key mechanisms:

– Autonomy as a Component of Freedom of Religion: According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (which is binding on Armenia as a member of the Council of Europe), the autonomy of religious communities is inextricably linked to freedom of conscience (Article 9 of the ECHR). In landmark cases (such as Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church vs Bulgaria), the ECHR clearly ruled that the state has no right to intervene in disputes over church leadership, initiate schisms, or impose a unified leadership on a community. The freedom to manifest religion includes the right of a community to function peacefully and free from arbitrary state intervention in its organisational structure.

– OSCE and Venice Commission Standards: The ‘Guidelines for Review of Legislation Pertaining to Religion or Belief’, developed by the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission, emphasise that states must respect the right of religious organisations to appoint and replace their leaders in accordance with their own canonical rules. The state may intervene in a community’s activities only in exceptional cases involving threats to national security or public order, but never to conduct ‘reforms’ of the leadership structure.

– The Principle of State Neutrality: International law obliges a secular state to remain a neutral and impartial organiser of the exercise of various religions. When a prime minister or a government takes the side of a particular faction within a church or attempts to dictate who its leader should be, they violate this sacred duty of neutrality, turning freedom of religion into an instrument of political control.