Introduction
On 17 September 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section) delivered its judgment in the case of Margaryan v. Armenia (Application no. 54266/17, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0917JUD005426617). The case was brought by Mr Pertch Margaryan, an Armenian national born in 1963 and resident in Gyumri, following the death of his son, A. Margaryan, during compulsory military service in December 2014.
The judgment addresses two core provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Article 2, which protects the right to life, and Article 13, which guarantees the right to an effective remedy. The Court examined both the substantive and procedural dimensions of Article 2, as well as the adequacy of domestic remedies available to the applicant under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 2.
This article provides an educational summary of the factual background and the legal issues identified by the Court as set out in the official judgment text. It does not constitute legal advice, and readers with specific legal concerns should consult a qualified legal professional.
Factual background: conscription, military service, and the circumstances of death
A. Margaryan was conscripted into the Armenian army in December 2013 and assigned to military unit no. 38636 of the Nagorno-Karabakh armed forces, based in Shushi, in the 'Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh'. Documentation in his service records from December 2013 described him as psychologically stable, sociable, and optimistic, with the concluding assessment stating that he had 'absolutely no issues with continuing military service'.
A further adaptation interview conducted in February 2014 similarly concluded that it was appropriate for him to continue his military service. In July 2014, following the successful completion of a training programme for newly conscripted servicemen, A. Margaryan was transferred to another division of the same military unit, based near Hadrut, approximately 80 kilometres from Shushi. A service assessment drawn up at that time described him as having a stable character and a positive attitude towards military service, and as being friendly and well regarded by staff.
On 4 December 2014, A. Margaryan was found in a trench next to the sentry post where he had been on duty that day, having sustained a gunshot injury to his chest. The initial report received by the Second Garrison Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of Armenia at 3.50 p.m. that day described the incident as an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Criminal proceedings were instituted on the same date under Article 110 of the 2003 Criminal Code, which concerns incitement to suicide.
An examination of the scene conducted on 4 December 2014 recovered, among other items, a modernised 7.62 mm Kalashnikov rifle with a 30-round magazine containing 28 rounds of ammunition, a second fully loaded magazine, one unfired round recovered from the rifle during unloading, and various personal items including a knife, a Bible, a mirror, and a wooden cross. The geographic layout of the sentry posts was also recorded: sentry post no. 1, where A. Margaryan was on duty, was situated approximately 120 metres from sentry post no. 4 and approximately 250 metres from the division command post.
Legal framework: Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention
Article 2 of the Convention imposes obligations on states that operate at two distinct levels. The substantive limb requires states to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction, including persons under their direct control such as conscripted soldiers. The procedural limb requires states to conduct an effective official investigation whenever a person dies in circumstances that may engage state responsibility.
Article 13 of the Convention guarantees that anyone whose Convention rights have been violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority. When read in conjunction with Article 2, this provision requires that domestic legal systems offer remedies capable of establishing the facts, attributing responsibility, and providing appropriate redress, including the possibility of obtaining an enforceable award of compensation.
The Court's summary of the legal issues in this case indicates that the proceedings raised questions about whether Armenia fulfilled both the substantive and procedural obligations under Article 2, and whether the domestic legal framework provided an effective remedy as required by Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2.
The Court's findings on Article 2: substantive and procedural violations
With respect to the procedural limb of Article 2, the Court found that the investigation into the circumstances of A. Margaryan's death was insufficient and inadequate. The judgment identifies this as a core failing: the domestic authorities did not conduct the kind of thorough and effective investigation that Article 2 demands in cases involving the death of a person under state control during compulsory military service.
On the substantive limb of Article 2, the Court found that the authorities failed to provide a plausible explanation for A. Margaryan's death. This finding is significant because it reflects the Court's assessment that the state did not discharge its obligation to account for what happened to a person who was in its custody and care at the time of his death.
Taken together, these findings indicate that Armenia fell short of the standards required by Article 2 of the Convention in both the conduct of the investigation and in the broader substantive obligation to protect life and to explain the circumstances in which a conscript died while under military authority.
The Court's findings on Article 13: lack of an effective remedy
The Court also found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 2. The judgment identifies two specific deficiencies in the domestic legal framework as it applied to the applicant's situation.
First, the Court found that there was a lack of a civil and/or administrative remedy capable of establishing any liability on the part of state officials or bodies independently of the results of the criminal investigation. This is a significant structural observation: where a family's ability to obtain any form of accountability is entirely dependent on the outcome of a criminal process, and that criminal process is itself found to be inadequate, the overall system of remedies fails to meet the standard required by Article 13.
Second, the Court found that the domestic framework did not provide the applicant with the possibility of obtaining an enforceable award of compensation. The combination of these two deficiencies meant that the applicant had no effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention for the violations of Article 2 that the Court identified.
Procedural aspects of the judgment
The application was lodged with the Court on 17 July 2017 by Mr Pertch Margaryan, who was represented by Mr A. Zalyan, a lawyer practising in Vanadzor. The Armenian Government were represented by their former Agent, Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters.
The case was examined by the Fifth Section of the Court, sitting as a Chamber composed of seven judges: Kateřina Šimáčková (President), Gilberto Felici, Andreas Zünd, Mykola Gnatovskyy, Vahe Grigoryan, Sébastien Biancheri, and Nicholas Emiliou, with Victor Soloveytchik serving as Section Registrar. The Chamber deliberated in private on 1 September 2026 and adopted the judgment on that date.
The judgment notes that it will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention and may be subject to editorial revision. The summary of the legal issues was prepared by the Registry and does not bind the Court.
Broader significance for military service and state accountability
The judgment in Margaryan v. Armenia contributes to the body of case law developed by the European Court of Human Rights concerning the obligations of states towards conscripted soldiers. The Court's findings underscore that the duty to investigate deaths occurring during compulsory military service is not discharged merely by opening criminal proceedings: the investigation must be effective, thorough, and capable of producing a plausible account of the circumstances of death.
The finding under Article 13 is equally instructive from an institutional and systemic perspective. The Court's identification of the absence of a civil or administrative remedy that operates independently of the criminal investigation highlights the importance of ensuring that multiple avenues of accountability exist within domestic legal systems. Families of deceased conscripts should not be left without any means of establishing state liability or obtaining compensation simply because a criminal investigation has not produced a definitive result.
States party to the Convention that maintain systems of compulsory military service should take note of the standards articulated in this judgment when designing and reviewing their investigative procedures and domestic remedial frameworks. The judgment reflects the Court's consistent position that the right to life under Article 2 carries with it robust procedural guarantees that must be given practical and effective expression in domestic law.
Conclusion
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Margaryan v. Armenia (Application no. 54266/17, 17 September 2026) represents a clear articulation of the obligations that Article 2 and Article 13 of the Convention impose on states in cases involving the death of a conscript during compulsory military service. The Court found violations of both the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2, as well as a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2, arising from the inadequacy of the investigation and the absence of effective civil or administrative remedies independent of the criminal process.
The case serves as an important reference point for understanding how the Convention's guarantees apply in the specific context of military service, and for appreciating the structural requirements that domestic legal systems must meet in order to provide genuine accountability and redress to the families of those who die while under state authority.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- CASE OF MARGARYAN v. ARMENIA - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications