Armenia’s Minister of Economy and Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Civil Contract party, Gevorg Papoyan, and Deputy Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister of Armenia, Taron Chakhoyan, threatened to enroll citizens in military training camps on the assumption that they are arriving in Armenia from Russia after receiving electoral bribes in order to vote for the opposition Strong Armenia alliance.

Today, June 4, a video distributed by Radio Aurora showed military police officers checking citizens’ passports at border checkpoints. According to the outlet, the Military Police are serving notices at border crossing points to male Armenian passport holders arriving from Russia who are under the age of 55, requiring them to participate in 25-day training camps.

The Armenian Center for Political Rights cannot verify whether the allegations concerning electoral bribery involving individuals arriving from abroad (including from Russia) are true. The investigation of such crimes falls within the competence of law enforcement and judicial authorities and must follow procedures established by criminal law. Discussion of that issue is secondary. Training camps constitute a form of compulsory military service, and reservists participating in them may be assigned to combat duty. By using training camps as a means of combating alleged bribery, the political authorities are imposing on citizens a punishment that is not prescribed by law.

The legislation governing training camps does not provide for a rotational system or lottery-based selection of reservists. Because of this deficiency in the law, one reservist may be enrolled in training camps multiple times, while another may never be enrolled at all. This approach is discretionary and arbitrary.

Assignment to combat duty is equivalent to military service and carries all the associated restrictions and risks. The existing practice of assigning citizens to combat duty in order to punish political opponents or restrict the voting of supporters of political competitors, together with the law’s deficient regulatory framework, is incompatible with the standards of a state governed by the rule of law.

Details and reasoning are available in the statement.