Military service
A. Margaryan was drafted in December 2013 and assigned to an Armenian military unit. According to the European Court's summary, his service records and the assessments of his superiors described him as stable and adapted to military life. He continued to be trusted with armed sentry duty.
On December 4, 2014, he was found in a trench near a sentry post with a gunshot wound to the chest. The case immediately required investigators to establish not only who fired the weapon, but also the range, timing and sequence of events at a location controlled by the military.
Forensic questions
An autopsy completed in February 2015 recorded a ballistic injury travelling from front to back. A cartridge found at the scene had been fired from Margaryan's assault rifle, yet investigators found no identifiable fingerprints on that rifle, including his.
Four servicemen were tested for gunshot residue and one tested positive. The European Court later noted that this result was not meaningfully followed up. The distance of the shot was not established, and the domestic file did not clarify the interval between the gunfire and discovery of the body.
The domestic conclusion
Investigators relied heavily on a posthumous psychological assessment that selected statements describing unusual behaviour. The Court contrasted that material with military records and supervisors' assessments that Margaryan was psychologically stable and had adapted to service.
The criminal investigation was terminated in February 2016 on the conclusion that he had died by suicide. His father challenged that decision through the Armenian courts, but the challenges were unsuccessful.
An alternative line of inquiry
Margaryan's father argued that his son may have been targeted in retaliation for testimony in another criminal case. This was a family allegation and an investigative hypothesis, not a fact established by a criminal judgment. The European Court's criticism was that authorities failed to examine plausible alternatives with sufficient rigour, not that it proved this particular theory.
The 2026 European Court judgment
On September 17, 2026, a seven-judge Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in Margaryan v. Armenia. It found violations of Article 2, the right to life, and Article 13, the right to an effective remedy. The Court said the investigation had serious shortcomings and that the authorities had not provided a plausible explanation for a death that occurred while the conscript was under State care.
The Court awarded Pertch Margaryan €50,000 in non-pecuniary damages. At this page's publication, the Chamber judgment was not final: under the Convention, either party could request referral to the Grand Chamber within three months.
Current status
No person has been convicted in connection with A. Margaryan's death. The domestic suicide finding remains historically part of the file, but the European Court's non-final Chamber judgment establishes that the inquiry did not satisfy the State's obligations under the Convention.
The archive therefore classifies the case as unresolved. It does not convert investigative defects into proof of homicide, and it does not treat the State's procedural responsibility as an individual criminal conviction.
Questions still unanswered
- What was the firing distance and precise trajectory at the sentry post?
- Why were no identifiable fingerprints recovered from Margaryan's rifle?
- What explains the positive residue result on another serviceman?
- Was every plausible link to the earlier criminal case investigated?
- Will either party seek referral of the Chamber judgment to the Grand Chamber?
Frequently asked questions
Did the European Court rule that Margaryan was murdered?
No. It found that the investigation was seriously deficient and that Armenia failed to provide a plausible explanation for the death; it did not identify a killer or issue a criminal homicide verdict.
Was anyone convicted?
No person was convicted in connection with his death.
Is the September 2026 judgment final?
No. At publication it remained a Chamber judgment subject to a three-month referral period.