Justice Turned Into a Show: The Real Purpose Behind the Case Against Vahe Hakobyan

The asset forfeiture proceedings unfolding around Vahe Hakobyan once again demonstrate how the law is applied not only in a legal arena, but also in the informational sphere. The issue is not merely the lawsuit filed in court. The issue lies in the way it is presented to the public — emphasizing noise rather than argument.

The Anti-Corruption Court has accepted into proceedings the Prosecutor General’s claim seeking the confiscation of various assets and financial resources attributed to Vahe Hakobyan and his family members. The figures are presented in an impressive manner: real estate, vehicles, deposits, bonds, and claims amounting to billions of drams. Yet while the judicial examination has only just begun, a perception of guilt is already being shaped in the public domain.

This is the core problem. First, a prominently framed report is aired on Public Television. Then, a representative of the Prosecutor’s Office announces the demands in sharp language that sounds closer to a verdict than to a procedural statement. The result is that society hears the “judgment” before the trial even begins. Meanwhile, facts, counterarguments, and the defense’s position remain in the shadows.

Moreover, within the framework of the case, the names of family members — including minors — are publicly mentioned. Regardless of any legal justifications that may be presented, such an approach creates an atmosphere of pressure and reputational damage. When a legal process is accompanied by public spectacle, it becomes difficult to perceive it as a purely professional examination.

The timing should not be ignored either. There is already an ongoing criminal proceeding against Vahe Hakobyan under other articles. In this context, the loudly announced launch of asset forfeiture proceedings is naturally perceived as an additional instrument of pressure. The use of such methods against political opponents has long ceased to be an exception.

The fight against corruption cannot be selective or theatrical. If there is solid evidence, it must be presented in court through a calm and substantiated procedure. But when the process turns into an informational campaign, it becomes evident that the objective is not solely a legal outcome, but also the shaping of public perception in order to discredit a specific individual.

The case against Vahe Hakobyan is still under judicial review, and only the court is authorized to assess the validity of the claims presented. However, it can already be observed that the process is accompanied by elements of spectacle. And when justice turns into a show, it loses its most essential value — trust.