- 7 April, 2026
- Foreign Policy
Recently, reports have been circulating about alleged coercion of employees—citizens of Armenia—working at Russia’s 102nd military base in Gyumri in the context of elections. In this regard, certain circles have advanced the claim that processes taking place on the base fall outside the jurisdiction of Armenian law enforcement bodies. In response, the Union of Informed Citizens has examined the relevant legal framework.
Legal regulations
Armenia is a sovereign state, and that sovereignty extends across the entire territory of the Republic of Armenia without exception. The Russian military base is located within Armenia’s territory and does not have extraterritorial status.
The principal document governing this issue is the 1995 Treaty between Armenia and Russia on the Russian Military Base on the Territory of the Republic of Armenia. It clearly stipulates that the base is stationed on Armenia’s sovereign territory, and nowhere does it state that it is considered Russian territory.
The division of jurisdiction is regulated separately by the 1997 Agreement on Jurisdiction and Mutual Legal Assistance in Matters Related to the Presence of the Russian Military Base on the Territory of the Republic of Armenia. Article 4 of this agreement provides: “In cases concerning crimes and other offenses committed on the territory of the Republic of Armenia by members of the Russian military base personnel and members of their families, the legislation of the Republic of Armenia shall apply, and its competent authorities shall exercise jurisdiction.”
Article 5 provides for exceptions in cases where the offense is committed at the base’s location, is directed exclusively against the Russian side, and constitutes a military (official crime). These provisions define situations in which questions of primary or concurrent jurisdiction of the Russian Federation may arise. However, they do not establish a general or automatic Russian jurisdiction over the base’s territory. In other words, jurisdiction must be assessed and determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific circumstances.
At the same time, Article 15 stipulates that the internal operations of the Russian military base are regulated by Russian legislation.
The acts in question, as defined under the criminal legislation of the Republic of Armenia, cannot in any way be considered part of the internal operations of the Russian military base. In other words, within the context of elections in Armenia, voter coercion or vote buying cannot be regarded as the base’s “internal operation” and therefore fall outside the scope of issues regulated by Russian legislation under the cited article.
Coercing a voter—forcing an individual to vote or not to vote—is explicitly criminalized under current Armenian law. Parts 3 and 4 of Article 210 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia provide for sanction of 4 to 10 years of imprisonment for such acts. In addition, Articles 218–220 regulate offenses related to vote buying, including receiving, giving, and mediating bribes. These constitute crimes against constitutional rights and freedoms, and investigations into such cases, by their nature, do not fall within the categories that, under treaties, could trigger the application of Russian jurisdiction.
Thus, coercion of voters on the territory of Russia’s 102nd military base takes place within the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia, constitutes a crime against constitutional rights and freedoms, and falls under the jurisdiction of Armenian law enforcement bodies. It does not fall within the limited exceptions provided for by treaties that could give rise to competing jurisdiction.
This is not “anti-Russian sentiment,” but rather the literal application of Armenia’s international treaties and Constitution. Disregarding the jurisdiction established by these legal acts constitutes a direct infringement on Armenia’s sovereignty.
International Practice
In general, such issues in relations between states are resolved by taking into account the following factors:
- the legal subject (who committed the act),
- the nature of the offense (official or not),
- the place where it was committed,
- the interests protected.
Agreements regulating the distribution of jurisdiction within military premises also exist in other countries, each with its own specific features.
In Tajikistan, the status of Russia’s 201st military base is defined by the Agreement of October 5, 2012, extended until 2042. It clearly provides for the exemption of Russian personnel and their family members from Tajik criminal, administrative, and civil jurisdiction, except in certain cases. Under Article 13(5) of the Agreement, the Russian military base personnel and their family members enjoy immunity. Without the consent of the competent authority of the Russian side, they shall not be subject to arrest, except in cases where they are apprehended at the crime scene. In such instances, the competent authorities of the Tajik side shall immediately notify their Russian counterparts, who shall then carry out the relevant procedural actions with respect to those individuals. In other words, this Agreement establishes a broader system of immunity for Russian personnel compared to the 1997 Treaty in force in Armenia and significantly limits the jurisdiction of the receiving state.
In Kyrgyzstan, the status of the Kant air base is defined by a 2003 Agreement. Article 4(1) provides that Russian air base personnel are immune and not subject to arrest or detention in any form. The same article also stipulates that personnel shall be exempt from Kyrgyz criminal, civil, and administrative jurisdiction for acts performed in the course of their official duties, except in limited cases provided for by the Agreement. These provisions likewise do not establish an absolute territorial transfer of jurisdiction, but rather link it to the performance of official duties.
Neither in Tajikistan, nor in Kyrgyzstan, Russian base personnel are not obliged to testify as witnesses.
Under Article VII of the Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces (NATO SOFA, London, 1951), concurrent jurisdiction shall be established where an act is punishable under the laws of both states. According to the principle of primary right (paragraph 3), the sending state shall have primary jurisdiction if the offense is directed against its property or security, or the person or property of another member of the force or civilian component of that state (including dependents), as well as offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty. In all other cases, primary jurisdiction rests with the receiving state.
Germany presents a notable case under the 1959 Bonn Supplementary Agreement. Germany has voluntarily waived its primary right in favor of the sending state (Article 19) for most offenses committed beyond official duties, but retains the right to recall this waiver within 21 days if the case is of particular importance to Germany.
In Japan, under the 1960 SOFA, Article XVII provides that Japan has primary right over offenses punishable under its laws, except where the act is directed against U.S. property, security, or personnel. In cases arising from acts or omissions committed in the performance of official duty, primary right rests with the United States. The Agreement also provides for a mechanism for waiving jurisdiction, as well as obligations for mutual notification and assistance between the parties.
In South Korea (US-ROK SOFA, 1966–1967), Article XXII stipulates that the United States shall have primary right in cases where the offense is committed in the performance of official duty or is directed against U.S. interests. In all other cases, jurisdiction lies with the receiving state, South Korea.
Conclusion
An analysis of international agreements shows that the status of military bases does not create an extraterritorial regime. Rather, it is based on the distribution of jurisdiction depending on the characteristics of the offense, particularly its link to official duties. No foreign military base operating on the territory of the Republic of Armenia can be considered a legal “dead spot,” as treaties do not stipulate a transfer of sovereignty, but only a conditional distribution of jurisdiction. Within this framework, acts directed against electoral rights cannot be construed as part of official duties and are therefore subject to investigation by Armenian law enforcement authorities.
Thus, Armenian law enforcement bodies are obliged to respond appropriately to any possible coercion exerted by personnel of Russia’s 102nd military base in Gyumri against employees who are citizens of Armenia and to investigate such cases under the relevant articles of the RA Criminal Code. Moreover, if necessary, there are no legal obstacles to criminally prosecuting individuals who have committed such crimes and holding them accountable by Armenian law enforcement bodies within the framework of Armenia’s legal framework.
Ruzanna Avagimyan
Union of Informed Citizens
