The Real Circumstances of Conscripts Gohar Martirosyan's Death Are Being Concealed by the Investigative Committee: 'Factinfo'

It has been a month since conscript Gohar Martirosyan was killed, yet the real circumstances of his death remain unclear. The investigative body has still not clarified where the soldier was killed and under what circumstances. It has not even been determined whether the fatal gunshot wound was to the head or the chest.

Recall that the Defense Army announced on December 5, 2021, via an official statement, that around 21:20 that day, conscript Gohar Martirosyan, born in 2002, received a fatal gunshot wound at a protection post within one of the Defense Army's military units. The same source also mentioned that the circumstances surrounding the soldier's injury are still unclear. Days later, the Investigative Committee informed 'Factinfo' that the soldier was killed by enemy gunfire and that a criminal case had been initiated under the relevant article: killing committed by a group of individuals or an organized group out of fervent national, racial, or religious hatred (Article 104, Part 2, Points 7 and 13 of the RA Criminal Code).

The investigative body also reported that the incident took place in a neutral zone near the former hotel 'Noyan Tapan' in Shushi, where Gohar and a friend noticed movement. Gohar suggested returning, while he himself stayed behind, began firing, and ended up shooting 15 rounds. The fatal injury was sustained in the head area; however, Gohar's relatives do not believe this version of events. One of them shared with 'Factinfo' that Gohar suffered a life-threatening injury not to the head but to the chest, about two to three fingers above the chest, and notably, from a very close distance, so close that the skin had burned, and the bullet exited from the back, the wound being flower-shaped and nearly fist-sized.

The media outlet had sent a written inquiry to the Investigative Committee prior to the New Year to clarify under which country's control territory the incident occurred—whether in Azerbaijan, Armenia, or Artsakh—and how many injuries were recorded during the external examination of the body and in which part of the body. They also inquired about how many cartridge cases were found at the scene, whether there were signs of a shootout, if Martirosyan's fellow servicemen were interrogated, and whether the Russian peacekeeping forces had been questioned.

In response to our written inquiry, the Investigative Committee stated that decisions had been made to recognize G. Martirosyan as a victim and his uncle as a legal successor, inspections had been conducted, several witnesses had been questioned, inquiries had been made, decisions had been made to carry out operational intelligence activities, and decisions had been made to assign forensic medical, forensic ballistic, forensic fingerprint, forensic genetic, and forensic toxicological examinations, whose conclusions have not yet been received.

“At the same time, I inform you that the investigation into the criminal case is at an active stage, and therefore, due to the confidentiality of the investigation, it is currently impossible to provide further information regarding the aforementioned incident,” the Investigative Committee stated.

If the incident occurred in a neutral zone or was due to enemy fire, then where were the peacekeepers? Why has this not been noted even in the peacekeepers’ informational bulletins? Why hasn’t the Artsakh Defense Army issued a corresponding statement, and why doesn’t the Investigative Committee present the evidence? Ultimately, it shouldn’t take months to determine the type of weapon that fired the shot. And if the soldier’s death is not a consequence of a ceasefire violation, the Investigative Committee should provide clarifications to the media regarding the dissemination of false information and the distortion of the circumstances surrounding the soldier's death in the public domain.