Why is this law dangerous: a ban on publicity and an imitation of public control
2025-12-18 12:54
The most problematic and dangerous part of the bill concerns photographs and videos. The text explicitly states that recordings of violence or cruel treatment of animals may only be used for investigation within authorized bodies and must be kept only by those bodies. Any other use, including publication on open platforms, is prohibited.
This means that if you have filmed an animal hater beating a dog, employees of the capture service treating animals cruelly, or animals being kept in horrific conditions in a "shelter," you are obliged to silently send the recording "where it belongs" and remain quiet. Showing it to people, to the media, or posting it on social networks so that the public can see the problem and react is no longer allowed.
Instead of openness and public pressure, a closed system is proposed, where the activist becomes merely a supplier of material, and then everything is decided behind closed doors. And if the authorized body does nothing, you will not only be left without a result but may also find yourself held liable for the "incorrect use" of the video recording.
At the same time, the justification for the bill states that it "establishes public control." It sounds as if animal advocates, volunteers, and simply concerned citizens will finally receive tools of real influence. However, if we read Article 7 carefully, it becomes clear that this is not control, but an imitation of it.
In fact, the law simply says that citizens and NGOs can exercise public control, and the results of that control can be submitted to authorized bodies or local self-government bodies. This means people can send something, and the bodies can simply remain silent. The text lacks any obligations for state bodies: there is no guaranteed timeframe for a response, no obligation to discuss the application, conduct an inspection, or involve public representatives in the process.
The functions of "public control" are effectively limited to people being able to film actions taken against animals in public places and send materials to the authorities, participate in the promotion of humane treatment, and inform the population about the norms of the law.
In other words, the public is being turned into a source of free video footage and propagandists, but they are not being made partners with real rights—such as access to shelters and capture points, participation in inspections, or oversight of the fulfillment of community contracts and sterilization programs.
As a result, the public does not receive the right to actually control the system, the authorities do not receive the obligation to actually respond, and animal defenders are effectively stripped of their main tool: publicity and public outcry. In this editorial version, "public control" is just a beautiful phrase in the text of the law, behind which there are no powers, no guarantees, and no real protection for animals.
We are not speaking out against a law on the responsible treatment of animals. Armenia truly needs such a law. But it must be a law where public control is not a decoration, but a real mechanism: the right of access to shelters and capture points, participation in inspections, and the obligation of competent bodies to react and be accountable. Not a law that forbids showing the truth and calls it control.