The head of Armenia’s Anti-Corruption Committee has called for HelpCourt, an independent platform where licensed lawyers evaluate judges, to be banned. According to the proposal, the platform threatens judicial independence.
It does not.
If anything, banning HelpCourt would weaken one of the few independent mechanisms that encourages transparency and professional accountability within Armenia’s judiciary.
For those unfamiliar with it, HelpCourt is an independent initiative created by members of Armenia’s legal community. The platform allows only licensed lawyers to evaluate judges based on their own courtroom experience. Lawyers can assess judges on professionalism, competence, impartiality, efficiency, and courtroom conduct, while also providing written feedback based on cases they have personally handled.
HelpCourt has no disciplinary authority. It cannot overturn court decisions, sanction judges, or replace the High Judicial Council. Its purpose is much simpler: to provide structured, professional feedback from the people who interact with judges every day and to encourage higher standards within the judiciary.
That distinction is important because judicial independence and judicial accountability are not competing principles.
Judicial independence protects judges from political pressure and outside interference when deciding cases. It does not place them beyond criticism or professional evaluation. In every healthy democracy, judges are expected to be both independent and accountable. One principle reinforces the other.
Lawyers are uniquely positioned to provide this type of assessment. They appear before judges on a daily basis, observe how they conduct proceedings, apply the law, manage their courtrooms, and treat litigants. Their collective professional experience provides valuable insight that official statistics or formal disciplinary proceedings often cannot.
Like any evaluation system, HelpCourt is not perfect. Its methodology can be improved. Safeguards can be strengthened. Attempts to manipulate ratings should be identified and addressed.
That has happened before.
Following the death of Armen Grigoryan, whom former judge Arusyak Aleksanyan had ordered into custody, Aleksanyan’s HelpCourt rating increased dramatically under circumstances that raised legitimate concerns. At the time, I publicly criticized what appeared to be an artificially inflated rating.
That episode was not an argument for abolishing HelpCourt. It was an argument for improving it.
Every evaluation system can be manipulated to some degree. Universities ask students to evaluate professors. Patients review doctors. Consumers rate businesses. None of these systems is flawless, yet no serious institution concludes they should be abolished because someone attempted to influence the results. The answer is better safeguards, not less accountability.
The same principle applies here.
HelpCourt gives Armenia’s legal community an opportunity to provide professional feedback on the judiciary. Many conscientious judges welcome constructive criticism because it helps improve the quality of justice. Ultimately, that benefits everyone who relies on the court system.
Governments should restrict civic initiatives only when there is clear evidence that they cause substantial harm to society. HelpCourt does the opposite. It promotes transparency, encourages professionalism, and strengthens public confidence in the judiciary.
The proposal to outlaw HelpCourt therefore cannot be viewed in isolation. It reflects a broader tendency under Pashinyan’s government to treat independent oversight as a threat rather than a public good. Institutions that exist outside government control increasingly face pressure whenever they provide scrutiny that those in power find uncomfortable.
Whether HelpCourt can be improved is a legitimate discussion. Whether it should be banned should not be.
