Minister of Foreign Affairs Ararat Mirzoyan

• On May 27, 2025, the Freedom of Information Center submitted an information request to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, requesting information on the “Yerevan Dialogue” conference. In response, the Ministry provided an interim response, requesting an additional 30-day period without specifying what additional work was needed to process the request or how much time that work would require. Moreover, 41 days after the initial request was sent, the FOICA has not received a final response.
• On April 11, Factor TV journalist Araks Mamulyan sent an information request to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, asking for details regarding the internal procedures necessary for the adoption of a “peace treaty” between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Specifically, the journalist inquired whether ministries, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had provided any conclusions on the treaty within the framework of their competence. The journalist also requested access to the text of the treaty. The Ministry responded in violation of the legally prescribed 5-day deadline, merely stating that “In accordance with the Law of the Republic of Armenia on International Treaties, the draft agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan will undergo the necessary domestic procedures within the appropriate timeframe.” At the same time, the Ministry requested an additional 30-day period to provide the treaty text, and then refused to provide the requested information 4 days before that deadline expired. As a result, the Ministry not only violated the deadlines and refused to provide a substantive response but also breached Article 11, Clause 3 of the Law on Freedom of Information, which requires that, in case of denial of an information request, the information holder must notify the applicant within 5 days, clearly stating the legal grounds for the refusal. To obtain the requested information, the journalist submitted several follow-up requests, the sequence and details of which were later presented in separate articles.

Yerevan Mayor Tigran Avinyan

•  On May 29, 2025, Factor TV journalist Gayane Khachatryan submitted an information request to Yerevan Municipality, asking for details regarding the unified ticketing system for public transport in Yerevan. The journalist also requested a copy of the contract signed between the Municipality and the “Tel-Cell” company, along with the relevant annexes. In response, Yerevan Municipality provided an active link, stating that the requested contract was available there: https://www.yerevan.am/hy/mayors-decisions/3832-2/. However, the link does not provide access to the actual contract but only leads to a standard template of agreements used by the Municipality. On June 16, the journalist submitted the second request, noting that the link was inadequate and once again requested a copy of the signed contract. In an official reply, the Municipality stated that provision of the requested contract “…is not possible at this stage.”
  Thus, the Municipality violated the Law on Freedom of Information by denying access to the requested information without providing proper legal justification.  The journalist applied to the FOICA to protect her violated rights. On July 2, the FOICA sent a request to the Yerevan Municipality, demanding the provision of the same information.

• On June 17, 2025, the Freedom of Information Center submitted an information request to Yerevan Municipality, asking for details regarding the total cost of the Yerevan International Ballet Festival, the contracts signed within the framework of the festival, the organization(s) responsible for festival logistics, the amount of money allocated to each participating theater and the purposes for which these funds were provided, among other details. The Municipality responded to FOICA’s request; however, as of June 24, one of the three contracts shared by the Municipality, coded YQ-MATSB-25/111, had not been published in the state procurement system. Furthermore, information on the amounts allocated to participating theaters was withheld on the grounds of “commercial secrecy.”It should be noted that expenses made from the municipal budget cannot be considered commercial secrets. Additionally, the Municipality failed to reference the specific legal basis for classifying the information as confidential, as required under Article 11, Clause 3 of the Law on Freedom of Information. On June 26, FOICA sent a second request, demanding active links to the contracts, a copy of the contract with code YQ-MATSB-25/111, and details regarding the amounts and purposes of funds allocated to each participating theater. In response to this request, the Municipality once again provided incomplete information, sharing only the contract codes and a general link to the state procurement system without ensuring easy access to the specific contracts or providing the requested copy of the YQ-MATSB-25/111 contract․ As of July 3, 2025, that contract was finally made available in the procurement system․Regarding the amounts allocated to the participating theaters, the Municipality once again refused to provide a proper response, stating: “The performance fees allocated to the mentioned cultural institutions may be published based on the information provided by and subject to publication by the National Academic Opera and Ballet Theatre named after Alexander Spendiaryan, which, as we informed in our letter No. 13/78709-25, may be disclosed after the necessary coordination with the relevant cultural institutions.”

Head of Artashat Community Karlen Mkrtchyan

• On May 25, 2025, the Freedom of Information Center (FOICA) submitted an information request to the Artashat Municipality, asking for details about the positions and salary rates of employees at the “Davith Rafayelyan” Art School NGO in Shahumyan village. The reason for the request was the application of citizen Lilit Simonyan to the FOICA. According to the application, on April 25, 2025, Ms. Simonyan had sent a similar request to the municipality. On May 6, after not receiving a response within the legally prescribed timeframe, Simonyan sent a second request. On May 8, the municipality rejected the request in writing, stating that the requested information contained personal data, and citing Article 8, Clause 1, Point 2 of the Law on Freedom of Information, which provides that “the information holder shall refuse to provide information if it violates the privacy of a person’s personal and family life.”On May 10, Ms. Simonyan sent another identical information request; however, the municipality officially replied that it had already responded to the requests. In its request, FOICA pointed out that the mere presence of personal data is not a sufficient ground to refuse information disclosure. The grounds for refusal should be the restriction on providing the information (the confidentiality of the information), including personal data. Although the municipality referred to both the Law on Personal Data Protection and the Law on Freedom of Information in its refusal, it failed to provide the specific legal basis for classifying the requested information as confidential, as required by law.Furthermore, the presence of non-disclosable data in the requested documents does not justify a complete refusal. According to Article 8, Clause 2 of the Law on Freedom of Information, “if part of the requested information contains data whose disclosure is subject to refusal, the remaining information shall be provided.” In response to FOICA’s information request, the municipality again refused to provide the information without proper justification.

Chairman of the Board of the “Civil Contract” Party, Nikol Pashinyan

• On April 7, 2025, Lusine Manvelyan, a journalist from Infocom.am, submitted an information request to the Civil Contract Party, asking for details on all transfers (donations) made to the party’s accounts between February 21 and April 7, 2025. The journalist requested names, surnames, and patronymics of the donors, the amount donated, and the date of each transfer, considering the fact that on February 21, an announcement was published on the party’s official website stating that the Civil Contract Party was launching a fundraising campaign to support the election campaigns and organizational expenses for the upcoming local elections in Gyumri and Parakar communities. On April 28, the journalist received a refusal to provide the requested information. The party justified the refusal by stating that, according to the established procedure, the party’s annual report on sources of financial means, expenditures, and assets would be published in the media within the legally prescribed timeframe, by March 25, 2026. On June 4, the Infocom.am a journalist sent a second request, asking the party to provide the specific legal basis for the refusal, including the legal provision justifying the denial. As of July 2, the journalist had received no response.It is important to note that there is already a legal precedent for a similar case. Ahead of the Yerevan City Council elections held on September 17, 2023, the ruling Civil Contract Party refused to provide the list of received donations. The Freedom of Information Center submitted an information request to the party, asking for information regarding donors who contributed during the party’s pre-election fundraising event for the Yerevan City Council elections. The party denied the request.In January 2024, following FOICA’s lawsuit, the Civil Contract Party proposed signing a settlement agreement and eventually provided the requested information to FOICA regarding the pre-election fundraising. Based on the disclosed data, media outlets uncovered several suspicious facts:
• Infocom.am: “They Said It, They Did It: Questionable Transactions and the Unidentified Sources of Civil Contract’s Pre-Election Donations.”
• Azatutyun.am: “Ten Days After Exposing Irregularities in Civil Contract’s Fundraising, No Criminal Case Has Been Initiated.”

President of the American University of Armenia (AUA), Dr. Bruce Boghosian

• Out of three information requests submitted by the Freedom of Information Center to the American University of Armenia, two received delayed, incomplete, and non-substantive responses, while one request remained unanswered. On April 14, 2025, FOICA sent an information request to AUA, asking for the latest Armenian version of the university’s admissions policy, a copy of the legal provision regulating the possibility of applying to a second faculty, information on whether an applicant on the waiting list for their first-choice faculty is simultaneously considered by the admissions committee of the second faculty within the same admissions cycle, and details on the procedure for evaluating applications to two faculties, among other related questions. FOICA had also noted in the request that such information was not available on AUA’s official website. Despite this, in a refusal signed by AUA President Bruce Boghosian, the university only provided a one-sentence reply stating that the requested information was available on the university’s website. By doing so, AUA violated Article 9, Part 7, Clause 2 of the Law on Freedom of Information, which requires that if the requested information is already publicly available, the response must clearly indicate the exact platform, location, and date of publication.On May 8, FOICA submitted the second request, pointing out the violation. Only after that, the AUA uploaded the Armenian version of the Admissions Policy to the “POLICIES” section of its website. However, the university failed to provide answers to the remaining questions.
• In another case, on May 27, FOICA sent an information request to AUA asking for details regarding educational programs related to the circular economy. As of July 3rd, the request remains unanswered.