Facts

On July 10, 2020, citizen Vardan Badasyan filed a lawsuit with the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction against Narek Mantashyan, NewsAM Ltd., Datablog Ltd., Analytic Ltd., Alternativ.AM and Ipress.AM, demanding to publicly refute the information considered defamatory, publish a refutation in the media and compensate for damages to his honor, dignity and business reputation (see court case No. ED/20756/02/20 and the separately processed case No. ED/ 4169/02/23). According to the plaintiff, on June 9, 2020, bloggers Narek Mantashyan and Koryun Grigoryan approached Rustam Badasyan, then RA Minister of Justice, and Tigran Avinyan, board member of the ruling “Civil Contract” party, at a restaurant. They engaged in a conversation, which concluded with Narek Mantashyan making the following remark about Rustam Badasyan’s father, plaintiff Vardan Badasyan: “Say hello to your father, the former corrupt official.”  The incident was livestreamed on Koryun Grigoryan’s Facebook page, and was also later shared by defendant Narek Mantashyan on his page. Following this, the video was republished by a number of media, including those named as defendants in this case, who cited the original source. In his lawsuit, Vardan Badasyan argued that Narek Mantashyan’s remark “Say hello to your father, the former corrupt official” was defamatory.

On March 18, 2024, the court ruled to uphold the lawsuit against Narek Mantashyan, while rejecting the claims against the media. The compensation claim of 2 million drams was reduced to 300 thousand drams, and the attorney’s fee was granted at 50 thousand drams. The court also obliged Narek Mantashyan to publish a refutation on the platforms run by NewsAM Ltd., Datablog Ltd., Analytic Ltd., Alternativ.AM and Ipress.AM, as well as on his personal Facebook page. The refutation was to state: “I, Narek Mantashyan, refute my public statement made on June 9, 2020, which contained defamatory elements suggesting that Vardan Badasyan was a former corrupt official. I had and have no facts to support the claim that Vardan Badasyan was a corrupt official in the past.”

Vardan Badasyan filed an appeal against the verdict with the Civil Court of Appeal. While the appeal has been accepted for proceedings, the court has not yet scheduled a date for the hearing. The defendants have not challenged the verdict.

Conclusion

The RA Court of Cassation’s legal position indicates that it is sufficient for a statement to be considered public under Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code if it is made in the presence of at least one other person or is communicated to that person. In this case, the statement was made in the presence of three persons. Later, Narek Mantashyan posted the video of this conversation on his Facebook page, which could also be seen as an independent episode of a defamatory public statement.

The IDC agrees with the court’s view that the controversial remark is defamatory, since it inherently tarnishes a person’s honor and dignity, according to public perceptions and established traditions. Regarding whether the expression could be qualified as a value judgment, it should be noted that the defendants did not present such an argument, and Narek Mantashyan failed to provide any evidence in court showing that he had certain factual grounds for making the statement. In this context, the Court of Cassation noted in one of its precedent rulings that “the European Court’s legal principles offer protection to negative opinions or value judgments only to the extent that they are based on confirmed or acknowledged facts. In contrast to facts, which can be presented and substantiated, value judgments cannot be proven… Value judgments may be considered unacceptable, since without a factual basis they could be seen as exaggerated” (Decision of the Court of Cassation dated 21/07/2020 in civil case ED/7480/02/18, page 8).

Considering the above, the IDC believes that in this case, a defamatory public statement made without any factual basis cannot be viewed as a value judgment and protected under the right to free speech. Added to that, Narek Mantashyan’s use of the controversial remark was not conditioned by any public interest. Therefore, the defendant’s remark “Say hello to your father, the former corrupt official” is defamatory in nature.

The IDC appreciates the court’s decision to acknowledge the violation only in the case of Narek Mantashyan, while not attributing any wrongdoing to the media that republished the video he shared. According to the court, in this case, the media were protected under paragraph 9 of Article 1087.1, since they acted in good faith and indicated the source of the information when republishing the content.

At the same time, the IDC disagrees with the court’s decision that obliged Narek Mantashyan to publish the specified refutation not only on his Facebook page, but also in the media that republished the disputed content. Such an obligation is especially unacceptable given the fact that the court rejected the lawsuit against those media. Thus, Narek Mantashyan does not have the capacity to compel the editorial offices to publish the refutation. In this context, the most the court could have done was to require the defendant to reach out the aforementioned media to publish the refutation. Ultimately, the decision on whether to fulfill the request and publish the refutation should have rested with the editorial offices. The law does not envisage any other action for the media that are not parties to the court case.

Information Disputes Council

Shushan Doydoyan (IDC Secretary), President of Freedom of Information Center

Ara Ghazaryan, Director of “Ara Ghazaryan” Law Firm

Boris Navasardian, Honorary President of Yerevan Press Club

Aram Abrahamyan, Chief Editor of “Aravot” Daily

Ashot Melikyan, Chairman of Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression

Olga Safaryan, Lawyer