What Does the Law Define About Captivity: Lurer

On November 16, as a result of provocations and military operations carried out by Azerbaijan, several Armenian soldiers have been captured once again. According to official sources, the number of captured soldiers is 13, while unofficial reports indicate that this number may reach several dozen as further information is being verified.

Since yesterday, the discussions among government representatives and opposition have focused on how and under what circumstances these Armenian soldiers were captured, whether they had the opportunity to avoid captivity, or if they could have fired back while located in the sovereign territory of Armenia to prevent being taken prisoner.

On November 17, during a question-and-answer session at the National Assembly-Government, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed the circumstances of the soldiers' capture: “It is time to properly investigate each case of captivity. Every individual serving in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia has obligations, and it should be clarified in every instance what it means to be taken prisoner and under what circumstances.” He further noted, “Military regulations clearly define when capture does not constitute a crime.”

Lurer.com examined the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia and found that, according to Article 381 of the Criminal Code, being taken prisoner voluntarily due to cowardice or timidity is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 8 to 15 years. If a serviceman finds himself cut off from his troops and has exhausted all means and possibilities of resistance, or is incapacitated due to severe injury or serious concussion, he is obliged to seek and use every opportunity to free himself and his comrades from captivity and return to his troops.

A captured serviceman has the right during interrogation to disclose only his name, surname, patronymic, military rank, date of birth, and personal number.

It is worth noting that while previously there was a narrative of glorifying captives, it seems that the opposite process is now taking place. Society is divided into two parts: some continue to glorify the captives, while others accuse and question the circumstances of their capture.