As a result of the Prosecutor General's appeal review, the Supreme Court has made a decision of pivotal and landmark significance.
28-08-2026 18:10 Armenia Human Rights
The Supreme Court, within the framework of the Prosecutor General's appeal review, made a pivotal and landmark decision on August 28, 2026, regarding the characteristics of the criminal composition related to participation in or involvement with a criminal subculture under Article 324 of the Criminal Code, also subjecting criminal compositions related to the criminal subculture to systematic analysis.
In particular, interpreting the specifics of combating organized crime and criminal subculture in light of international convention provisions and the European Court of Human Rights' precedential positions, the Supreme Court established the main characteristics of a criminal subculture group or the "criminal world" and noted that the criminal subculture group, or the "criminal world" as used synonymously by the legislator, essentially coincide from a legislative regulation perspective and refer to the same phenomenon. Therefore, within the framework of the aforementioned legal norm, it should be considered that not separate groups or associations, but the entire "criminal world" as a unified system, with its informal hierarchy, authorities, and influence, operates according to the rules of conduct it has established and recognized.
It is characterized by the "resolution of problems" through violence, intimidation, and coercion. Moreover, the existence of the "criminal world," as a well-known fact, does not require proof within the framework of criminal proceedings.
In other words, the prosecuting body is not obliged to substantiate and prove the existence of the "criminal world" as a criminal subculture system in each specific case.
Addressing the criminal composition related to involvement in the realization of the objectives pursued by the criminal subculture group, the Supreme Court noted that it manifests itself through any form of involvement by a person not affiliated with the criminal subculture group in the objectives pursued by the group, contributing to their realization.
In other words, the aforementioned individuals are outside the criminal hierarchy, do not belong to or participate in the criminal subculture group ("criminal world"), but merely have supportive involvement in the realization of its objectives.
The Supreme Court emphasized that although sending requests to correctional institutions is, in fact, permissible under the law and cannot itself serve as a basis for establishing participation or involvement in a criminal subculture group, it may still hold certain significance in assessing the aforementioned circumstances, considering the circle of individuals to whom the requests are sent, their frequency, as well as the nature of the relationship between them and the sender (for example, the sender is not a close relative or kin) and so on.
The Supreme Court noted that a person carrying the traits of a criminal subculture approaches the resolution of a specific issue not as a private individual but as one embodying the morals of the criminal subculture, conditioning their actions within the framework of the ideology and pursued objectives of that phenomenon, such that these actions fall outside the scope of relationships directed against property.
ENGLISH
