1-Turkish Research Center Repeatedly Praises
Pashinyan and Criticizes the Diaspora
By Harut Sassounian
www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com
2- Armenia’s payment to James Cameron raises eyebrows about financial priorities
3- $470 Million World Trade Center Yerevan Project Officially Launched
4- The locks of Derik Sourp Kevork Church have been changed, and the controversy has been taken to the Istanbul Patriarchate
5- Joe Manganiello Explores His Armenian Roots, Family History, and Legacy of Survival in New Memoir
6- The European Court of Human Rights Rules against Armenia in favor of Avetyan uniting with his daughter
7- Leonardo DiCaprio backs Armenia–Colombia initiative to recover threatened species
**************************************************************
1- Turkish Research Center Repeatedly Praises
Pashinyan and Criticizes the Diaspora
By Harut Sassounian
TheCaliforniaCourier.com
The Center for Eurasian Studies (AVIM), a research center based in Ankara, Turkey, covers the Caucasus, the Balkans, Central Asia, Russia, and Iraq. The Center frequently publishes articles supportive of Pashinyan’s government and critical of the Diaspora.
Below are a few articles AVIM published over the past four weeks:
1) “Armenia Caught between Diaspora Ambitions and State Memory” by Aygun Attar, September 14, 2026.
Here is how the author summarized the article: “The Armenian diaspora has historically played a significant role in the formation of modern Armenian political identity and in the internationalization of the Armenian question. In particular, the organized lobbying capacity developed in the United States, France, and the broader European political arena has generated a wide field of activity ranging from keeping the events of 1915 on the international agenda to parliamentary initiatives concerning Türkiye, and from the Karabakh question to political pressure and sanctions-oriented demands directed at Azerbaijan. Yet the geopolitical reality that emerged in the South Caucasus after the Second Karabakh War of 2020 has increasingly exposed a divergence between the historical political paradigm maintained by certain organized diaspora circles and the contemporary state interests of the Republic of Armenia. This article conceptualizes that divergence as the ‘state-bearing diaspora paradox.’ It comparatively examines Armenian-American lobbying surrounding Section 907, parliamentary politics in France, European Parliament resolutions concerning Türkiye and Azerbaijan, and selected examples of Western media framing…. The central argument is that although the historical achievement of the Armenian diaspora lay in internationalizing the Armenian question, the continued reproduction of an unchanged conflict paradigm may now generate diplomatic and economic costs not only for Türkiye and Azerbaijan but also for Armenia itself as Yerevan seeks normalization with both states.”
2) “Two Different Approaches to Armenia’s Political Orientation: Territorial Claims and ‘Real Armenia’” by Tuğçe Tecimer, October 9, 2026.
Here is how the Turkish author reacted to my column: “An article published on September 20, 2026, in ‘The California Courier’ — a publication representing the radical, militant segment of the diaspora — under the headline ‘Pashinyan Makes Anti-Armenian Statements at International Conference in Yerevan,’ harshly criticized the remarks made by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan at the ‘Comprehensive Security & Resilience 2026’ conference held in Yerevan on September 17. Focusing on the peace process Pashinyan is conducting with Azerbaijan, debates regarding constitutional amendments, and his approach to historical issues, the article argued that the policies pursued by the Prime Minister contradict Armenia’s national interests. However, the most noteworthy aspect of the article is not the criticism of Pashinyan’s diplomatic choices, but rather the political vision he articulated regarding Armenia’s future. In particular, the discussion he initiated concerning Mush and Van highlighted the divergence between the discourse on historical rights — prevalent in certain diaspora circles — and Pashinyan’s ‘Real Armenia’ approach. The article’s primary objections center on Pashinyan’s stance regarding constitutional amendments — which are viewed as excessive concessions to Azerbaijan — and his decision to sideline territorial claims. Additionally, the piece highlights an anecdote about a history teacher telling students they must ‘liberate Mush and Van’ when they grow up. The argument advanced through this example is clear: Armenians should not abandon claims to territories they believe were lost in the past, but rather keep alive the possibility that shifting geopolitical conditions could create an opportunity to reclaim these lands.”
3) “Radical Diaspora Criticized by the Armenian Government” by Selenay Erva Yalcin, October 12, 2026.
Here is what Yalcin wrote: “Opposition groups have leveled constant criticism following Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan’s declaration of the ‘Real Armenia’ ideal as official government policy — a vision that prioritizes establishing relations with regional countries based on peace, prosperity, and stability within existing borders, while eschewing historical ambitions. While the primary sources of this criticism within the country are opposition parties and the Church leadership, the external sources are the radical-militant elements of the diaspora known for their anti-peace stance…. As AVİM, we have repeatedly emphasized that the diaspora’s radical and anti-peace stance stems from a malicious approach aimed at undermining the South Caucasus region, the Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty process, and the Turkey-Armenia normalization process.”
4) “Following Pashinyan’s New York Engagements: Tensions Rise Between the Diaspora and the Armenian Government,” by Hazel Cagan Elbir, October 15, 2026.
Here is how the author reacted to my column: “Nikol Pashinyan’s visit to New York in September 2026 — beyond his address to the UN General Assembly — has brought the structural tensions between the Armenian diaspora and the government in Yerevan back into the spotlight. An article by Harut Sassounian, published in ‘The California Courier’ and ‘The Armenian Weekly’ — titled ‘Did Pashinyan Come to NY to Address the UN or Split up Armenian University Students?’ — offers a concrete example of this friction. According to Sassounian, rather than engaging in an open dialogue with the broader Armenian community, Pashinyan held a closed-door meeting with a limited number of students belonging to the All-Armenian Student Association (All-ASA); this has been interpreted as a selective attempt to sow division within the diaspora. The core argument of the piece is that the rift between the diaspora and the government is not narrowing; rather, the sense of opposition is deepening.”
The biggest mistake Azeri and Turkish analysts and their government leaders repeatedly make, often inadvertently, is that the more they praise and support Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, the more they reinforce the impression that his policies favor Azerbaijan and Turkey, not Armenia. Nothing better demonstrates that Pashinyan’s positions serve the interests of Armenia’s adversaries.
**************************************************************
2- Armenia’s payment to James Cameron raises eyebrows about financial priorities
By Ani Ghulinyan
OC Media
Filmmaker James Cameron, known for directing The Terminator (1984), Aliens (1986), Titanic (1997), and Avatar (2009), will visit Armenia in October to meet with representatives of the film industry and movie fans in Yerevan. His visit is sponsored by Yerevan Municipality.
Authorities have not released how much they have paid for the director’s attendance, but ticket prices for the event vary from $14 to $415. The event, titled ‘In Conversation with James Cameron: A Cinema Legend, Live in Yerevan’, is organized by Mezzo Production but is initiated by Yerevan Municipality.
In recent years, Armenia’s municipal authorities and government have played a significant role in organizing various events, concerts, meetings and festivals.
‘This is a unique opportunity to meet one of the most influential filmmakers of our time, hear his stories from the world of cinema, and discover the creative thinking behind some of the most notable projects in world cinema’, City Hall said, regarding the event.
The Armenian government is still trying to recover part of the roughly $6 million it spent on Jennifer Lopez’s August 2025 concert in Yerevan. The show was organized with public money but produced by a private firm, Doping Space, which sold tickets ranging from $69 to $493 each. An RFE/RL investigation found that the company left more than $1.4 million of the funding unspent, and the Education Ministry has been unable to retrieve it.
The same company, Doping Space, was paid $6 million from the state budget to organize a Snoop Dogg concert in Yerevan. Although the concert never took place, the company has not yet returned the money. The government blamed the company for failing to reschedule the show following Azerbaijan’s attack on Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 and demanded a refund.
Armenian social media users have criticized the choice to pay for Cameron’s visit, with some complaining that the Yerevan municipality has turned into an event-planning company, while major infrastructural issues such as road quality, air quality, and traffic control remain unresolved.
Spending state money on this scale, and this often, as if we were a carefree nation, just partying like this. I’m not against celebrating or marking national holidays, but it should be done sensibly. After all, it’s our money being spent, and I don’t want the taxes I pay to go up in smoke like this. I want the money to go toward solving institutional problems and changing the sectors that actually deliver results’, wrote blogger Hayk Mkrtchayn in a Facebook post.
Yerevan’s recent 2,808th birthday celebrations featured themed live music stages spread across central Yerevan, alongside the ‘Discover Armenia from the Sky’ International Balloon Festival. Residents and visitors gathered at the Cascade for jazz, Diana Abgar Park for rock, Freedom Square for classical music, and Northern Avenue for traditional tunes and wine tasting, while Republic Square hosted electronic beats.
And that was just one of many recent events held across Armenia.
In August, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan organized a two-day event called Varchafest — a state-sponsored music festival for emerging young artists. It cost nearly $500,000 of the Armenian budget and took place in Sevan.
Pashinyan has also organized the Festivar series of state-funded cultural events, which have been held since he came to power in 2018. Critics argue that the concerts allow Pashinyan to shift focus from pressing security concerns. In the past, some have also raised questions about the transparency of the selection process for those contracted to organize the events.
———————————————————————————————-
Ani Ghulinyan is a journalist with a background in multimedia reporting, podcast production and documentary filmmaking. She has a Master´s degree in Media Studies and is interested in stories about migration and post-conflict transformation.
**************************************************************
3- $470 Million World Trade Center Yerevan Project Officially Launched
YEREVAN — The World Trade Center Yerevan project, a $470 million public-private investment initiative expected to include the tallest building in Armenia’s capital, has officially entered its implementation phase.
The development will be located at 22 Saryan Street, on the site of the HayPost building, and aims to
transform the area into a major international business and commercial center.
As part of the launch ceremony, a management agreement was signed with Hyatt Hotels Corporation. A memorandum of understanding was also signed with UK Export Finance, the United Kingdom’s export credit agency, to explore partial financing for the project.
Speaking at the event, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed hope that the development would become a lasting architectural landmark and contribute to shaping Yerevan’s urban identity.
“Buildings, structures, and projects of this kind are not designed for just one or five decades. They are conceived with the expectation of having a history spanning centuries,” Pashinyan said.
He emphasized the importance of long-term planning, arguing that major national development projects should be guided by a vision extending well beyond immediate political and economic priorities.
According to the prime minister, this approach reflects the government’s broader vision of Armenia as an enduring state, with development strategies designed to serve future generations.
The World Trade Center Yerevan development was approved by the Armenian government in 2023 as a major urban redevelopment initiative.
The project’s ownership structure consists of the Republic of Armenia, holding a 19 percent stake; Renshin, with 56 percent; and HayPost, with 25 percent.
With a total planned investment of $470 million, the development is described as one of Armenia’s largest public-private partnership projects.
Beyond its architectural significance, World Trade Center Yerevan is intended to serve as a gateway connecting Armenian businesses with international companies and investors.
Through the global World Trade Centers Association network, the project aims to strengthen international commercial ties, attract investment, and position Armenia as a regional business and trade hub.
The development is expected to contribute to Yerevan’s economic modernization while expanding Armenia’s participation in international trade and business networks.
**************************************************************
4- The locks of Derik Sourp Kevork Church have been changed, and the controversy has been taken to the Istanbul Patriarchate
Iskhan Erdinc
Agos
Zekerya Sabunci, who lives in the Derik district of Mardin, had been voluntarily responsible for the Sourp Kevork Church in the district for years. However, last week, the Keçecioğlu family, who owns the church and are members of the Derik Armenian community, claimed in a press statement that Sabunci had changed the church’s locks without their knowledge and that the church and its garden were neglected. The family also stated that the paintings in the church were missing. Sabunci’s son, Ğazar Sabunci, said that the paintings were brought to Istanbul for restoration with the knowledge of the Patriarchate.
The locks of Derik Sourp Kevork Church have been changed, and the controversy has been taken to the Patriarchate.
The Sourp Kevork Church in Derik was built in 1650. After 1915, the church passed into the ownership of the Treasury. Until 1957, it was used as a stable and arsenal. In 1957, the church was put up for sale and purchased by the Armenian community in Derik. The title deed was registered in the name of Garabet Keçecioğlu, who was involved in the process. After Keçecioğlu’s death in 2000, the title deed passed to his family. The number of Armenians living in Derik gradually decreased, and no services were held in the church for many years. The maintenance of the church was undertaken by Zekerya Sabunci, who returned to his hometown of Derik in 2014. Sabunci, who is involved in the family profession of olive farming, was also one of the three Armenian citizens living in the district and was interested in the historical Sourp Kevork Church. However, last week, Sabunci made a post on his personal Facebook account stating that the Keçecioğlu family came to Derik and broke and changed the lock on the church.
Statement from the Keçecioğlu Family
Following comments made after a social media post, the Keçecioğlu family issued a press statement. In their statement, the family stated that Zekerya Sabunci had changed the church’s locks without their knowledge or the knowledge of the Derik Armenians, that the church was neglected, and that the paintings in the church were missing.
The explanation is as follows:
“The Sourp Kevork Armenian Church in Derik, Mardin, was repurchased by the Derik Armenian Community in 1957, and the title deed of the church was registered in the name of Karabit Keçecioğlu (Oruz), who made significant contributions during this process.”
After Karabit Keçecioğlu’s death in 2000, the maintenance and security of the church were carried out for many years by Naif and Yürşalin Demirci.
However, without the knowledge of our family and the Derik Armenian community, the church’s keys were taken, as Zekerya Sabunci himself stated, by the police, the locks were changed, and access to the church was brought under control.
It was observed that the church and its garden, which Zekerya Sabunci claimed to be maintaining, were in serious disrepair; various items unrelated to the church (stretcher’s chair, barber’s chair) and fighting roosters were found in the garden.
The most important and serious issue is the absence of historically valuable paintings from the church. We do not know who removed these paintings, for what reason, or with whose knowledge. Furthermore, the allegations that forgeries have been made must also be clarified.
We have also determined that Zekerya Sabunci collected money under the guise of donations by sharing his personal information. We do not accept the accusations of “robbery” leveled against the Keçecioğlu family in various forums.
On behalf of the public, we expect answers to the following questions:
– Why was the church key taken and why were the locks changed?
– Why is the church in such a neglected state?
– Where and how are the donations collected on behalf of the church used, and have any permits been obtained from the relevant authorities for receiving these donations?
– Where are the historical paintings, and by whom were they removed from the church?
– Is it true that forgeries of the paintings were made? If so, what was the purpose of this?
The Sourp Kevork Armenian Church is not the personal property of anyone. It is part of the shared history, faith, and cultural heritage of the Derik Armenian community.
Our aim is not to accuse anyone prematurely; it is to ensure the protection of the church, historical artifacts, and community heritage, and to ensure that the events are clarified by the relevant authorities.
This is respectfully announced to the public.
Statement from Sabunci
Speaking to Agos, Ğazar Sabunci, the son of Zekerya Sabunci, stated that the church’s title deed should actually have been transferred to a foundation, that the paintings in the church date back to the 1700s, and that they were brought to Istanbul for restoration. Sabunci stated that the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey was aware of the restoration process of the paintings. Sabunci claimed that the paintings are currently kept in the Samatya Sourp Kevork Church, and that the Keçecioğlu family is aware of this. Sabunci said the following:
“Naif Demirci, being elderly, gave the church’s key to a woman. She then used the church for purposes other than its intended use. After my father returned to Derik in 2014, he went to the Derik District Governorship and retrieved the key. Until this last incident, he had been maintaining the church on a voluntary basis. Because the church’s title deed does not belong to a foundation, support from public institutions for renovations and restoration could not be obtained. With the support of members of the Derik Armenian community, a guesthouse was built in the church, and the toilets were renovated. The church has no income whatsoever. Three paintings in the church are valuable. They were brought to Istanbul for restoration. Through the mediation of the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey, the paintings were taken to the Samatya Sourp Kevork Church. The restoration of two of them has been completed, but work has not yet begun on the third. The paintings have been at the Samatya Sourp Kevork Church since the end of July. The Keçecioğlu family is aware of this. I told them that restoration would be done. These paintings were to be preserved, and replicas were to be sent to Mardin. The title deed of this church actually belongs to a foundation should be transferred.”
Samatya Foundation: The paintings were brought to us.
On the other hand, the Samatya Sourp Kevork Church Foundation released a statement on social media regarding the paintings at the Derik Sourp Kevork Church. In its statement, the Samatya Foundation noted that the paintings were brought to their church by Ğazar Sabunci. The statement reads as follows:
“The aforementioned paintings were brought to the Samatya Sourp Kevork Armenian Church through Gisasargavak Gazar Sabunci and with the permission and guidance of the Armenian Patriarchate of Türkiye.”
The before and after versions of one of the restored paintings.
Our foundation has no knowledge or involvement in any matter or organization related to the transportation or restoration of the paintings.
Only members of the Foundation’s Board of Directors and those authorized by them have the authority to make statements and inform the public on behalf of our Foundation.
Please disregard any statements or posts made by individuals or social media accounts other than this official source.
This is respectfully announced to the parties and the public.”
Meeting at the Patriarchate
Following these developments, a meeting was held at the Patriarchate on Wednesday, September 9th, regarding the future of the Sourp Kevork Church in Mardin. The meeting, chaired by Patriarch Maşalyan, was attended by members of the Keçecioğlu and Sabunci families, as well as individuals from the Armenian community of Derik. Currently, the ownership and use of the church belong to the Keçecioğlu family. In a statement to our newspaper, Sabunci said that no conclusion was reached at the meeting and that the original paintings would be sent to Derik.
**************************************************************
5- Joe Manganiello Explores His Armenian Roots, Family History, and Legacy of Survival in New Memoir
Joe Manganiello’s “Bloodlines“ Brings Armenian Family History to Life, with Contributions from Pulitzer Prize Winner Peter Balakian and System of a Down’s Serj Tankian
LOS ANGELES — For generations, Armenian families have passed down extraordinary stories of survival, sacrifice, displacement, and resilience. Now, acclaimed actor and author Joe Manganiello explores his own remarkable family history in his new memoir, “Bloodlines,” connecting the experiences of his Armenian ancestors with the personal journey that has shaped his life.
Known to audiences worldwide for his work in film and television, Manganiello offers readers an intimate look beyond Hollywood, examining his Armenian ancestry, his own life-threatening health challenges, and the powerful influence of family history on his understanding of identity and survival.
Central to the memoir is the story of his Armenian great-grandmother, a survivor of the Armenian Genocide, whose extraordinary journey forms part of his family’s enduring legacy.
For Armenian-Americans, family history is often inseparable from cultural identity. Stories of grandparents and great-grandparents who survived unimaginable hardship, rebuilt their lives, and preserved their heritage continue to shape generations born far from their ancestral homeland.
In “Bloodlines,” Manganiello explores the profound connections between these inherited histories and the challenges of his own life, examining what it means to understand where we come from and how the experiences of our ancestors continue to influence who we become.
The memoir has earned praise from Pulitzer Prize-winning Armenian-American poet and author Peter Balakian, who describes “Bloodlines” as, “An astonishing story of courage and spiritual resilience.”
Balakian, whose acclaimed literary work has explored the Armenian Genocide, historical memory, and intergenerational trauma, offers a particularly meaningful endorsement. His praise underscores one of the memoir’s most compelling themes: how the extraordinary survival story of Manganiello’s Armenian great-grandmother becomes a source of strength and spiritual awakening as he confronts his own life-threatening challenges.
The audiobook edition of “Bloodlines” offers an especially meaningful listening experience, incorporating elements of Armenian spirituality and music into Manganiello’s deeply personal storytelling.
Narrated by Manganiello himself, the audiobook features the “Armenian Guardian and Hope Prayer for Protection,” bringing a spiritual dimension to the narrative and reflecting the enduring role of faith and tradition in Armenian cultural identity.
The audiobook also includes “Snow on Ararat” by Serj Tankian, the Grammy Award-winning Armenian-American musician, activist, and lead vocalist of System of a Down.
Named for Mount Ararat, one of the most enduring symbols of Armenian identity and heritage, Tankian’s musical contribution adds another powerful cultural connection to the audiobook.
Together, these elements weave Armenian spirituality, music, and cultural identity into a listening experience that extends beyond the traditional memoir format.
Manganiello’s exploration of his Armenian heritage extends well beyond the pages of his memoir.
In 2024, he embarked on a deeply personal pilgrimage to Armenia, reconnecting with his ancestral homeland and gaining a deeper understanding of its history, culture, and people.
The journey strengthened his connection to his Armenian roots and reflected a desire shared by many members of the Armenian diaspora: to understand the sacrifices of previous generations while developing a meaningful relationship with the Armenia of today.
During his visit, Manganiello also experienced firsthand the work of the Children of Armenia Fund, an organization dedicated to creating opportunities for children and families in rural Armenia.
His commitment to Armenia continues through his service as a member of COAF’s Board of Directors, supporting the organization’s mission to expand educational opportunities, strengthen communities, and empower the next generation.
His involvement reflects a dedication not only to honoring his ancestral heritage but also to helping shape a brighter future for Armenia.
While “Bloodlines” chronicles Manganiello’s individual journey, its themes extend far beyond one family or community.
For Armenian-American readers, the memoir offers a powerful connection to shared experiences of survival, cultural preservation, and the transmission of family history.
For readers of all backgrounds, it is a reminder that the stories of those who came before us often shape our lives in ways we are only beginning to understand.
Through “Bloodlines,” Manganiello invites readers to reflect on their own family histories, the strength inherited from previous generations, and the importance of preserving the stories that connect past, present, and future.
“Bloodlines” is a memoir by Joe Manganiello, published by Avid Reader Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster.
The book explores Manganiello’s personal experiences, family ancestry, and the enduring connections between survival, identity, and resilience.
The audiobook, narrated by Manganiello, features the “Armenian Guardian and Hope Prayer for Protection” and “Snow on Ararat” by Serj Tankian.
The book is available now in hardcover, eBook, and audiobook formats.
Visit the Simon & Schuster website for book information and purchasing options.
Joe Manganiello is an American actor, author, and producer known for his work across film and television. A proud Armenian-American, he has publicly embraced his ancestral heritage and traveled to Armenia in 2024 to deepen his connection to his family’s history. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Children of Armenia Fund.
**************************************************************
6- The European Court of Human Rights Rules against Armenia in favor of Avetyan uniting with his daughter
In the case of Avetyan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Gilberto Felici, President, Mykola Gnatovskyy, Vahe Grigoryan, judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, regarding the application (no. 11997/25) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 May 2025 by an American national, Mr Smbat Avetyan (“the applicant”), who was born in 1982, and was represented by Ms A. Dashyan and Mr A. Ghazaryan, lawyers practising in Yerevan; the decision to give notice of the application to the Armenian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr K. Andreasyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters; the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court).
The parties’ observations: Having deliberated in private on 10 September 2026, delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the State’s alleged failure to undertake measures to fulfil its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to enforce the applicant’s parental rights and reunite him with his daughter, as well as the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard.
2. The applicant is the father of a seven-year-old girl, A.A., whose mother is Y.H. The family is ethnically Armenian but resided in the United States until the parents divorced in 2021.
3. On 13 March 2023 the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, granted full physical custody of A.A. to the applicant.
4. On an unspecified date the child was taken to Armenia, where she was allegedly unlawfully retained by Y.H.
5. In October 2024 Y.H. left the child in the care of her mother, M.M., and father, Y.Hov., and travelled to the United States.
6. On 12 October 2024 the applicant travelled to Armenia in an effort to assume custody of the child. However, the child’s maternal grandparents did not permit him to take the child into his care.
7. On 12 February 2025 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction (“the Yerevan Court”), seeking an order requiring M.M. and Y.Hov. to return the child. He also requested a provisional measure ordering the child’s return pending the outcome of the proceedings. On 21 February 2025 the Yerevan Court refused the request for a provisional measure. On the same date, however, it delivered, of its own motion, a separate decision establishing a visiting schedule, allowing the applicant to see his daughter three times a week for three hours on each occasion, without the presence of the grandparents.
8. On 24 February 2025 the Compulsory Enforcement Service (“the CES”) initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the Yerevan Court’s order establishing the visiting schedule. On 5, 7 and 21 March 2025 the bailiff made telephone calls to M.M. and Y.Hov. in an attempt to arrange visits. However, no visits took place, as M.M. and Y.Hov. requested postponements, proposed that the visits take place in their apartment, or were absent from their apartment. On 21, 23, 26 and 28 March 2025 the bailiff, together with the applicant and a representative of the local child protection authorities, visited the grandparents’ residence at the times specified in the court order, but they were absent.
9. Meanwhile, following an appeal by the applicant, on 31 March 2025 the Civil Court of Appeal delivered a provisional measure ordering Y.Hov. and M.M. to return the child to the applicant pending the outcome of the proceedings. It held that as long as the child was not in the actual care of her mother, she was to be in the care of her father, who enjoyed a preferential right to raise his child vis-à-vis third parties, including the child’s grandparents.
10. On 1 April 2025 the CES initiated new enforcement proceedings and a bailiff, together with the applicant, visited the grandparents’ residence to enforce the order to return the child to the applicant. However, M.M. and the child were not there, and Y.Hov. claimed he did not know their whereabouts. On the same date the bailiff formally decided to initiate search measures and subsequently requested that the police carry out a search.
11. On 4 April 2025 the police informed the CES that a search had been initiated.
12. In April 2025 the applicant submitted several criminal complaints, alleging that the grandparents’ non-compliance with the court order of 31 March 2025 had constituted a criminal offence under Article 507 § 1 of the Criminal Code (failure to execute or obstruction of the execution of a judicial act). The investigator refused to initiate criminal proceedings, concluding that the actions described by the applicant had not constituted a criminal offence.
13. On 14 May 2025 Y.H. returned to Armenia and, on 23 May 2025, moved into her parents’ apartment. The following day she was interviewed by the police.
14. On 27 May 2025 the police sent a letter to the CES, revealing that M.M. and the child had been found and that they were at the grandparents’ apartment.
15. On 9 October 2025 the bailiff decided to terminate the search measures.
- THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT:
- ALLEGED VIOLATION of ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
16. The applicant complained that the State had failed to fulfil its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to enforce his parental rights and ensure that he was reunited with his daughter.
17. The Government argued that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the applicant had not appealed against the investigator’s decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings (see paragraph 12 above). The Court notes, however, that that alleged omission could not have absolved the authorities from their obligations in the matter of enforcement – including, where appropriate, through the imposition of sanctions – since it is they who exercised public authority (see Ignaccolo‑Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 111, ECHR 2000-I; Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, § 107, 23 September 2003; and Tzioumaka v. Greece, no. 31022/20, § 86, 9 April 2024). This objection must therefore be dismissed.
18. The Government further argued that the application should be declared inadmissible as premature, on the grounds that civil proceedings concerning the complaints raised before the Court were still pending. The Court observes, however, that in so far as the applicant’s complaint concerns the alleged failure to enforce binding provisional measures already adopted in respect of his parental rights, it cannot be regarded as premature solely because the proceedings on the merits are still pending (see Fourkiotis v. Greece, no. 74758/11, §§ 16 and 45-47, 16 June 2016).
19. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
20. The relevant general principles concerning the State’s positive obligation to protect the relationship between parents and their children have been set out in a number of cases (see, for example, Malec v. Poland, no. 28623/12, §§ 66-67, 74 and 78, 28 June 2016; E.K. v. Latvia, no. 25942/20, §§ 72-77, 13 April 2023; and Tzioumaka, cited above, §§ 79‑80).
21. In the present case, the CES was initially required to enforce the Yerevan Court’s order of 21 February 2025, which had established the visiting schedule. While several attempts were made to enforce that order, they were all unsuccessful (see paragraph 8 above).
22. Subsequently, on 31 March 2025 the Civil Court of Appeal delivered a provisional measure ordering Y.Hov. and M.M. to return the child to the applicant. The authorities were therefore under a positive obligation to take adequate, swift and effective measures on the basis of that decision to enforce the applicant’s parental rights. Since the child’s whereabouts were unknown (see paragraph 10 above), this required, firstly, that they take all reasonable steps to locate her (see Hromadka and Hromadkova v. Russia, no. 22909/10, §§ 165-69, 11 December 2014).
23. On 1 April 2025 the CES formally initiated search measures for M.M. and requested the police to carry out a search. Accordingly, the police formally initiated a search. However, the Government have not demonstrated that, following the formal initiation of those search measures, any concrete action was taken to locate the child, such as interviews with Y.Hov., enquiries with relatives, neighbours or relevant institutions, or the possible tracing of M.M.’s whereabouts through her mobile phone location data. The Court is especially concerned that in a situation where the child’s whereabouts were unknown – a particularly serious matter – the Government have not been able to provide any evidence whatsoever regarding concrete measures taken beyond the formal initiation of a search.
24. Furthermore, no sanctions were imposed in response to the lack of cooperation on the part of the child’s maternal grandparents, who repeatedly failed to make the child available and did not disclose her whereabouts when the bailiff sought to enforce the court orders. The Court reiterates that it is up to the competent authorities to impose appropriate sanctions – even of their own motion – in the event of a lack of cooperation on the part of the persons with whom a child is living (see Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, § 76, ECHR 2003-VII; Sévère v. Austria, no. 53661/15, § 98, 21 September 2017; and Tzioumaka, cited above, § 86).
25. It is true that by 27 May 2025 – that is, nearly two months after the search had been initiated – the child had been located at the grandparents’ residence. However, the Government have not demonstrated that this was the result of concrete efforts on the part of the authorities, rather than merely the consequence of the mother’s return to Armenia shortly beforehand (see paragraph 13 above).
26. Shortly after the mother’s return to Armenia, the child was in her care. This rendered the Civil Court of Appeal’s order no longer applicable, as it had been directed against the child’s maternal grandparents and the court had specifically noted in its reasoning that the child was to be in the applicant’s care as long as she was not in the actual care of her mother. The Court therefore cannot fault the domestic authorities for not pursuing the enforcement of that order thereafter. The Court cannot accept the applicant’s argument that the domestic authorities have failed to secure his custody rights on the basis of the decision of the Superior Court of California (see paragraph 3 above), because that decision has not yet been recognised in Armenia under Article 346 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
27. However, irrespective of the subsequent change in circumstances, the Court finds it problematic that the authorities did not promptly inform the applicant once his daughter had been located. The Government referred to the bailiff’s decision of 9 October 2025 terminating the search measures (see paragraph 15 above) and a letter dated 10 October 2025 addressed to the applicant as evidence that he had been informed by the authorities that his daughter had been located. However, that decision was issued and the accompanying letter was prepared after the Government had been given notice of the present application and nearly four and a half months after the child had been located. The Government further argued that the applicant’s observations of 16 December 2025, which included documents concerning the child’s whereabouts, indicated that he had been informed of his daughter’s whereabouts at an earlier stage. However, the applicant has shown that those documents were submitted to the Yerevan Court by M.M. on 8 October 2025, thus demonstrating that he had obtained them after a delay of nearly four and a half months. Such a delay in the authorities’ informing the applicant that his daughter had been located could have given rise to feelings of uncertainty and anxiety in the applicant and adversely affected his contact with his daughter. The Court finds no justification for such a delay, especially considering that the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for relations between a parent and a child.
28. In those circumstances, the absence of information about any concrete measures taken to swiftly locate the child with a view to enforcing the applicant’s parental rights, coupled with the authorities’ failure to inform the applicant promptly once she had been found, shows that the national authorities failed to take all the measures that could reasonably have been expected of them to enable the applicant to reunite with his daughter and preserve their relationship. That failure discloses a breach of the State’s positive obligation to protect the relationship between the applicant and his daughter.
29. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Alleged lack of effective domestic remedies
30. The applicant also complained that he had had no effective domestic remedy at his disposal for his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. This complaint could fall to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention. However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal question raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the complaint concerning the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
- APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
31. The applicant claimed 12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
32. The Government contested that claim.
33. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
34. The applicant did not claim any costs and expenses.
- FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
- Declares the complaint concerning the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
- Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint concerning the alleged lack of an effective domestic remedy;
- Holds
- that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
- that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 October 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
**************************************************************
7- Leonardo DiCaprio backs Armenia–Colombia initiative to recover threatened species
World-renowned Hollywood actor Leonardo DiCaprio has expressed support for an initiative by Armenia and Colombia to establish the Coalition of Action to Recover Endangered Species (CARES) ahead of the COP17 conference opening in Yerevan. Sixteen countries have joined as founding participants.
DiCaprio wrote on Instagram:
“Preventing extinction isn’t enough. We need to bring threatened species back from the brink and recover them. Today’s announcements at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP17) signal growing global momentum to make that happen.”
The actor highlighted that 16 countries, led by Armenia and Colombia, had joined the new Coalition of Action to Recover Endangered Species (CARES), committing to accelerate efforts to prevent extinctions and achieve measurable species recovery.
“Nine philanthropic funders and organisations, including my organisation Re:wild, formed the Species Recovery Alliance, collectively committing and aligning more than $500 million over five years to support the recovery of species around the world that are Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered and Endangered.
“These two separate initiatives share a common goal: helping the world’s most threatened species recover, which requires sustained investment, coordinated conservation action and long-term commitment.
“Congratulations to the founding governments and organizations,” DiCaprio said.
**************************************************************
If you wish to read daily
updated Armenian news and commentary,
Please send me your email
address: [email protected]
Website:
TheCaliforniaCourier.com
**************************************************************