Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Congratulate Armenia on New Law on Disappeared Persons in Military Operations, Raise Questions on the Penalties for Enforced Disappearances and the Participation of Relatives in Searches
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of additional information on the report of Armenia on its implementation of the provisions on the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Committee Experts congratulated the State party on its new law on disappeared persons in military operations, while raising questions about the penalties for enforced disappearances and how relatives could actively participate in searches.
Elías Ricardo Solis González, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, congratulated the State for the adoption of the law on persons disappeared in conditions and circumstances arising from military operations in 2026.
Mr. Solis González said article 451 of the new Criminal Code of 2022 punished enforced disappearance with sentences of three to seven years in prison. Considering that the Convention required that this crime be punished with appropriate penalties that took into account its extreme seriousness, how did the delegation justify that this punitive range was identical to or lower than that of minor crimes in its criminal legislation?
Mr. Solis González also noted that the Armenian Investigative Committee reported that there were still 206 active cases of disappearances linked to the 2020 hostilities and the events of 2023. However, the families of the disappeared military personnel and civilians systematically denounced opacity, lack of reliable information, and serious contradictions in the results of DNA tests. What mandatory institutional communication mechanisms had been put in place to ensure that relatives and members of civil society could actively participate in the searches and had unhindered access to the investigation files?
Introducing the report, Robert Abisoghomonyan, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Armenia and head of the delegation, reiterated Armenia’s firm commitment to its obligations under the Convention, which the State had been forced to implement under particularly difficult circumstances. Over the past six years, the consequences of the conflict in the region had included a significant number of missing persons, including individuals who were victims of enforced disappearance.
Concerning the penalties for enforced disappearances, Rubina Mkhitaryan, Head of the Department for International Legal Cooperation of the Ministry of Justice of Armenia, in opening remarks, said the new Criminal Code defined enforced disappearance and stated it was punishable by imprisonment for a term of three to seven years. Aggravated circumstances, like disappearing vulnerable persons, could increase the sentence to between 10 and 15 years of imprisonment. The Code ensured that penalties were fully commensurate with the extreme gravity of the crime. In instances where enforced disappearance was considered as part of a broader crime, it could be considered as a crime against humanity or a war crime, with penalties of up to 20 years. In this case, the crime of enforced disappearance was exempt from any statute of limitations.
The delegation said family members were provided with DNA identification results, and after receiving conclusions had the right to submit objectives and requests for additional information. The participation of relatives in the relevant procedure was ensured in accordance with the law. If relatives disagreed with the results of the examination, this was formally recorded and examined by the investigative authority and further forensic investigations could be undertaken when justified
In concluding remarks, Mr. Abisoghomonyan thanked the Committee for the dialogue. The State looked forward to receiving the Committee’s observations and would give them due consideration.
In his concluding remarks, Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, Committee Chairperson, said the Committee stood ready to help and work with all States parties, the victims of enforced disappearance, and all actors in the struggle to combat the scourge of enforced disappearance.
The delegation of Armenia consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Internal Affairs; the Investigative Committee; the Interagency Commission on Matters Concerning Prisoners of War, Hostages and Missing Persons; the Office of the Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters; and the Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Webcasts of the meetings of the session can be found here, and meetings summaries can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 15 September, to consider the list of issues of Lesotho in the absence of a State report (CED/C/LSO/QAR/1).
Report
The Committee has before it additional information on the report of Armenia (CED/C/ARM/A1/1).
Presentation of Replies to the List of Themes
ROBERT ABISOGHOMONYAN, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Armenia and head of the delegation, reiterated Armenia’s firm commitment to its obligations under the Convention, which the State had been forced to implement under particularly difficult circumstances. Over the past six years, the consequences of the conflict in the region had included a significant number of missing persons, including individuals who were victims of enforced disappearance. Cases involving Armenian soldiers following their capture had also raised concerns among United Nations mandate holders, including the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
These cases arose during the 44-day war in 2020, the events of September 2022, and the influx of more than 130,000 Karabakh Armenians in September–October 2023. These circumstances had created significant humanitarian, legal and institutional challenges and highlighted the need for an effective national framework to address enforced disappearance, protect affected families, facilitate the search for missing persons, and preserve relevant information and evidence.
One of the most significant recent developments was the adoption of the new law of the Republic of Armenia on persons who have gone missing under conditions and circumstances resulting from military operations, which entered into force in May 2026. The law established a comprehensive framework for missing persons and their families. It provided for the right of family members to receive timely and reliable information, the State’s obligation to search for missing persons and clarify their fate and whereabouts, and the participation of families in relevant procedures, as well as providing for financial compensation and social benefits for families.
Additionally, Armenia’s new Criminal Code, together with the broader framework governing criminal responsibility for serious violations of fundamental rights, was intended to ensure that conduct falling within the scope of the Convention was appropriately addressed through criminal law. Armenia attached particular importance to the rights and needs of families of missing and disappeared persons. The response must therefore extend beyond criminal investigations to include legal assistance, access to information, psychological and social support, financial assistance and, where applicable, other forms of reparation.
The search for missing persons and clarification of their fate and whereabouts remained among the most important practical challenges. Bilateral and multilateral cooperation, first and foremost with Azerbaijan, was important and considered to be an exceptional humanitarian concern. The established peace in the region had created favourable conditions for further cooperation.
Armenia also considered international cooperation essential to complement national efforts and continued to engage with international humanitarian organizations and other stakeholders. A valuable example was the psychosocial rehabilitation programme implemented with financial support from the Government of Slovenia and carried out by ITF Enhancing Human Security with Armenian partners. The programme provided specialised psychosocial support to relatives of missing or disappeared persons and strengthened national capacity by training Armenian specialists.
Armenia also maintained close cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross on missing persons, support for families, clarification of fate and whereabouts, forensic matters and the implementation of international humanitarian law. In May 2026, with Red Cross support, a high-level Armenian delegation visited Cyprus to exchange experience with the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus on institutional, legal, humanitarian and practical approaches. Armenia further maintained constructive cooperation with the International Commission on Missing Persons, which in 2023 conducted a comprehensive assessment of Armenia’s legislative and institutional framework and scientific and technical capacities. These partnerships demonstrated Armenia’s commitment to international cooperation, exchange of expertise and strengthening national capacities to address the issue of missing persons and the needs of affected families. Armenia looked forward to a constructive and substantive dialogue with the Committee.
RUBINA MKHITARYAN, Head of the Department for International Legal Cooperation of the Ministry of Justice of Armenia, said several key legislative developments ensured the implementation of the Convention in Armenia. The new Criminal Code defined enforced disappearance and stated it was punishable by imprisonment for a term of three to seven years. Aggravated circumstances, like disappearing vulnerable persons, could increase the sentence to between 10 and 15 years of imprisonment. The Code ensured that penalties were fully commensurate with the extreme gravity of the crime. In instances where enforced disappearance was considered as part of a broader crime, it could be considered as a crime against humanity or a war crime, with penalties of up to 20 years. In this case, the crime of enforced disappearance was exempt from any statute of limitations. The definition of the victim within the Code was comprehensive.
Armenia had also ratified the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, which entered into force in February 2024. Trainings had been conducted for representatives of law enforcement, the judiciary and other relevant stakeholders. The new law of the Republic of Armenia on persons who have gone missing under conditions and circumstances resulting from military operations recognised the right of missing persons to have their circumstances examined and required the State to take all measures to undertake an effective search.
The main framework for extradition was established by the Constitution, international proceedings and the law on legal assistance in criminal proceedings. An extradition procedure needed to contain the required information under international law, and the competent Armenian authority would then determine if the request could be fulfilled. The request would be denied if there was a chance the person being extradited would be subjected to torture, cruel or inhumane treatment.
Questions Committee Experts
ELÍAS RICARDO SOLIS GONZÁLEZ, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said article 451 of the new Criminal Code of 2022 punished enforced disappearance with sentences of three to seven years in prison. Considering that the Convention required that this crime be punished with appropriate penalties that took into account its extreme seriousness, how did the delegation justify that this punitive range was identical to or lower than that of minor crimes in its criminal legislation? What judicial guidelines ensured that the application of mitigating circumstances by the courts in no case degenerated into impunity or the imposition of disproportionately light sentences?
Regarding the aggravating circumstances for the disappearance of minors, pregnant women or persons in a "situation of helplessness”, what were the specific jurisprudential criteria adopted by the Armenian courts to interpret the "situation of helplessness"? Was it automatically assumed that the total and illegal isolation of the disappeared person placed them in a de facto condition? What was the regime and the exact statute of limitations for cases of enforced disappearance that were investigated in isolation? How did the State party ensure that this period was counted only from the moment the disappearance ended? What were the specific functions of the National Security Service, and which functions lay with the interdepartmental division of prisoners of war?
The Committee congratulated the State for the adoption of the law on persons disappeared in conditions and circumstances arising from military operations this year. How did this law guarantee the status of a victim and the absolute right to know the truth for family members, without this being discretionally dependent on the progress of the criminal investigation or the formal demonstration of the death of the disappeared person? What measures had been taken to ensure that the definition of the victim in the Criminal Code universally applied to any person who had suffered direct harm, overcoming formalistic or restrictive interpretations? After more than four years of entry into force of the new Criminal Code, how many cases of enforced disappearance had been registered, investigated and prosecuted?
Regarding the databases of the Investigative Committee, the Rescue Service and the Forensic Medicine Centre, what were the protocols in place to ensure immediate interconnectivity with the records of places of deprivation of liberty managed by the Police and the National Security Service? What frequent control measures were in place and how many officials had been sanctioned under the new criminal framework for irregularities in the search of persons deprived of their liberty? Was there already provision for the automatic suspension of any official suspected of involvement in a disappearance to prevent them from influencing the investigation?
Alternative reports submitted to the Committee by civil society organizations repeatedly denounced the enforced disappearance of Azerbaijani children, as well as hundreds of civilians and military personnel held in territories that were under the jurisdiction or effective control of Armenia from the 1990s to 2020. What independent judicial investigations had the Office of the Prosecutor General of Armenia opened to clarify the fate and whereabouts of these persons who had disappeared on an ongoing basis? Following the verified discovery of human remains in mass graves, what concrete steps had the Armenian interdepartmental division taken to actively cooperate with Azerbaijan in the exchange of DNA profiles and burial maps, treating this matter as a strictly humanitarian priority?
In the face of the harrowing testimonies documented by non-governmental organizations of torture, sexual exploitation of adolescent girls in captivity and the illicit removal and trafficking of organs, had the State party initiated ex officio criminal investigations to identify the military commanders or operatives responsible for these serious violations? The Armenian Investigative Committee reported that there are still 206 active cases of disappearances linked to the 2020 hostilities and the events of 2023. However, the families of the disappeared military personnel and civilians systematically denounced opacity, lack of reliable information, and serious contradictions in the results of DNA tests. What mandatory institutional communication mechanisms had been put in place to ensure that relatives and members of civil society could actively participate in the searches and had unhindered access to the investigation files? What protection was given to people participating in searches, as well as witnesses, by the State?
BARBARA LOCHBIHLER, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked if the delegation could provide specific information concerning the fate of persons held hostage or prisoners of war who subsequently disappeared? The report of the International Commission on Missing Persons from 2024 spoke about 3,890 persons missing, including 3,171 military personal. What figures were available? The report also documented sexual exploitation of Azerbaijani hostages, trafficking of organs from child hostages, and torture; could the delegation comment on this? What was the State’s opinion about an independent DNA comparison mechanism between Armenia and Azerbaijan to help account for the disappeared? How could DNA processing capabilities be improved?
Were there cases of missing persons where no proper information was given to relatives? How many regional offices were there for the Human Rights Defender of Armenia? What issues were they dealing with and was their budget sufficient? Were there socio-psychological assistance programmes available for relatives of the disappeared and what was the status of those programmes? Did the State party intend to strengthen its communication mechanisms with families of the disappeared? Did the State have concrete data and statistics about expulsion and refoulement cases? The Committee had adopted a general comment on migration and enforced disappearance; was this included in the country’s training programmes? What action plans did the State party have and how was enforced disappearance featured within these plans?
Another Committee Expert asked questions, including on the criteria for the applicability of sentences and the criteria judges took into account when applying a sentence; how were the investigations going into the cases of 71 children and 280 women who were missing, and if a gender perspective was taken into account in investigations; how did judges know when to implement sanctions; had there been investigations of cases of femicide and enforced disappearance; what was the reason that the context of a victim was limited exclusively to conflict; had the State recently documented any cases of enforced disappearance; and who was responsible for the investigations?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the numbers within the report were provided by the Azerbaijani side. The State believed the issue of missing persons should not become a political narrative. This approach was reflected in the initial peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which took place last year. The two parties undertook actions to address the issue of missing persons from the armed conflict, ensuring proper investigations and confidence building. The State did not believe that the humanitarian issue of missing persons could be addressed by unilateral responsibility. Around 800 Armenians remained missing from the conflict in the early 1990’s. The State had raised these cases with Azerbaijan. Today, both Armenia and Azerbaijan had taken steps to move forward from competing narratives towards a cooperative mechanism to exchange information and investigate individual cases. It was important to try and provide answers to the families and build peace and trust in the region.
The Human Rights Defender Institute in Armenia was established in 2004 and had been accredited A status under the Paris Principles, with the funding increasing from year to year. The Institute currently had five regional offices.
There had been 24 participants in the psychosocial programme with Armenian mothers and fathers, with assistance from the Slovenian Government. The feedback from the programme had been very positive.
Searches for missing persons were conducted through operational, investigative and forensic mechanisms. For every reported case, the competent investigative authority prepared and verified information concerning the persons last known whereabouts. DNA profiles obtained from remains were compared with reference samples provided by relatives. The Investigative Committee cooperated with the police, forensic institutions and other competent State bodies. A comprehensive database had been established covering missing persons and prisoners of war and had registered more than 50 cases relating to the 44-day war. There were now around 172 missing Armenian military personnel and 19 missing Armenian civilians.
Each missing person had a separate dossier, with genetic results, forensic information, and detailed mapping coordinates of the last place the person was seen. These dossiers were analysed to ensure every case was treated systematically. Family members were provided with DNA identification results, and after receiving conclusions had the right to submit objectives and requests for additional information. Every request was examined within the criminal proceedings. The participation of relatives in the relevant procedure was ensured in accordance with the law. If relatives disagreed with the results of the examination, this was formally recorded and examined by the investigative authority and further forensic investigations could be undertaken when justified.
Regarding the 44-day war of 2020, Armenia had complied with its obligations, providing updates concerning any disappearance of Armenians. Information concerning identified remains of corpses was transmitted internally, and when appropriate, transmitted to the International Criminal Court. Armenia considered that the clarification of the fate and whereabouts of victims of enforced disappearance was fundamentally a legal measure.
Behind every unresolved case was a family waiting for definitive answers about the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones. One of the key institutions involved in this process was the scientific centre of forensic medicine, which carried out relevant investigations. DNA testing was carried out using biological samples from families of missing persons. Laboratories had been equipped with additional equipment to accelerate genetic testing. All experts had received specialised training in using modern genetic equipment.
Under the law, a single register was maintained for missing persons to centralise them into a single electronic system, and take into account information necessary for effective search. The unified register was currently under development. All victims of enforced disappearance received a public pension as well as other benefits, including free public transport.
Follow-up Questions by Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions on the unified single register of missing persons and when it would be available; the timeline of finalisation of the implementation of the peace treaty; criteria used to ensure data on grave sites was not classified under the law on State secrets; if the Government intended to establish an independent civilian-led oversight body for decisions concerning humanitarian data; how the Government planned to streamline field operations to avoid lengthy court or investigation delays; what formal institutional mechanisms the Government had established to cross-reference its data with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other bodies; and how the Government ensured that the creation of the register did not delay the investigation of cases of missing persons.
Questions were also asked on how the law addressed cases of DNA identification that were scientifically impossible; legal and administrative alternatives which existed to allow the formal handovers to families; specific protocols which governed long-term storage of remains held in State morgues; protocols in place to manage degraded remains from the 1990s conflict; the illegal transfer of children to the United States and what measures had been taken against perpetrators; if there were any specific actions to defend families who were victims of illegal adoption; whether Armenia was party to the Hague Convention on international adoptions; criteria established to have access to psychosocial support programmes; safeguards established for human remains which had been rejected by families; what measures the State had taken regarding these remains; what conditions needed to be fulfilled under the State’s legal order to establish a declaration of absence relating to enforced disappearance; conditions for having access to compensation under the law on disappeared persons; and if victims could receive free legal assistance to activate those processes.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that since 1 July 2022, no reports had been received regarding article 451 of the Criminal Code of Armenia. No investigations had been instigated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs in this regard. The Police guard was formed on 1 November 2025. An asylum seeker may not be expelled from the territory of Armenia where there was danger that they could be subject to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, or punishment, including torture. In Armenia, there were no cases of enforced refoulment.
Stricter sanctions were applied when enforced disappearance was considered to be part of a broader international crime. The Criminal Code stated that the type and size of punishment depended on intentions, damage and circumstances of the crime, among other factors. As there were no such cases of enforced disappearance, there were no examples of how courts were sharing these regulations. The law on missing persons provided a definition of the victim. The Criminal Procedural Code provided for using special protection measures or surveillance when required.
The unified register was created for centralising all relevant information relating to missing persons. The timing was still being determined. The law on legal assistance in criminal proceedings entered into force in 2024. The State was in the process of implementing a new system which would have more functions pertaining to the penitentiary system.
The peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan had already been negotiated and finalised. The provisions, including those on missing persons, had already been agreed between the two States. The families should not wait until this political process was finalised; Armenia had already expressed its willingness to cooperate on this humanitarian issue. It was agreed that after the signing of the peace agreement, international claims would be redrawn.
The issue of persons missing from the 1990’s had been raised before the European Court of Human Rights, which remained pending. It had also been raised within the International Court of Justice, with Armenia raising objections to the court’s decision.
The independence of forensic medical experts was established by the Criminal Procedural Code. Forensic examinations were carried out independently based solely on scientific standards. The centre was independent from other bodies carrying out scientific examinations. In 2027, the State planned to obtain a new machine for complex cases.
The list of missing persons was regularly updated, disaggregated by sex. Three separate criminal cases concerning alleged trafficking in children had been sent to court, involving 14 accused persons. Investigations were currently ongoing into further episodes involving France and the United States.
Closing Statements
ROBERT ABISOGHOMONYAN, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Armenia and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the dialogue. Over the years, Armenia had taken important steps to strengthen its framework for enforced disappearance, including through the adoption of new legislation and the strengthening of forensic capacities. Families of those disappeared throughout the conflict with Azerbaijan had lived in uncertainty for years and Armenia was committed to resolving this issue. The State looked forward to receiving the Committee’s observations and would give them due consideration.
JUAN PABLO ALBÁN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chairperson, thanked Armenia for the dialogue. These direct exchanges were essential for enabling the Committee and States parties to work together to implement the Convention. The Committee stood ready to help and work with all States parties, the victims of enforced disappearance, and all actors in the struggle to combat the scourge of enforced disappearance.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CED26.008E