For more than two years, the Investigative Committee has been investigating the criminal case initiated in connection with the death of soldier Arthur Gasparyan. Although there is ample evidence that the boy was killed, investigators at the Sixth Garrison Investigative Division do not want to give up the hypothesis of suicide.

Let us remind you that Arthur Gasparyan’s body was found on May 4, 2018, in the guard post of the N military unit, with a fatal gunshot wound in the mouth. A criminal case was immediately initiated under Article 110, Part 1 of the Criminal Code for “intentionally or negligently, indirectly causing a person to commit suicide or attempted suicide through threats, ill-treatment or degrading personal dignity”.

The base commander was charged with violation of the rules of combat duty or military service, insulting a serviceman (Articles 365 and 360 of the Criminal Code). He is free.

From the start, Arthur’s suicide seemed improbable. He was a big, strong boy, serving for about a year and a half, who had overcome the difficult period of adjusting to the army. On the evening of the day of his death, he spoke on the phone with his sister and father, waiting for his family to visit him on Sunday. According to the family members, he had no reason to end his life. has referred to this case several times. There are many obscure issues, questions that were not addressed by either the experts or the investigators. The victim’s representative, criminologist, human rights activist Ruben Martirosyan drew our attention to these issues.

In a conversation with, he mentioned that, for example, according to the forensic medical report of the corpse, traces of gunshots were found in Gasparyan’s mouth, in the area of his palate; wounds, which, according to investigators, Gasparyan managed to cause himself with a pistol, but with a tested machine gun. However, none of the experts still answers the question of the caliber of the bullets that caused the damages. Ruben Martirosyan listed several circumstances that make it obvious that a murder took place, which there is no intention to reveal, and that investigators are doing everything not to reveal it.

How could Gasparyan commit suicide with three separate shots?

First, the investigating body considers it proven that two shotgun shells were found at the scene. However, the fingerprint expert writes that the weapon is missing three bullets, that is, three bullets were fired. Experts K. Abrahamyan և A. Hambardzumyan turned the three missing bullets into two. They consider it possible that Gasparyan killed himself with two bullets, but this is excluded, since the fuse of the machine gun was placed in a single position, and Gasparyan could not have committed suicide with two single shots. And if there were three shots, as it follows from the examination, then it turns out that Gasparyan fired three single shots from his machine gun, which makes the version of suicide  absurd.

Arthur Gasparyan was killed with an AKM weapon, and the machine gun is false material evidence

Mechanical injuries and traces of violence were found on Gasparyan’s hands and clothes. This fact was not investigated, and the claim of the legal successor of the victim to appoint a post-mortem examination of Arthur’s clothes was rejected. But the investigator himself had to send Gasparyan’s clothes for examination without any demands from family, if, of course, he wanted to find out what damages were on it, when and how they occurred.

In the descriptive part of the examination of the clothes, mechanical damages and tears were fixed in the area of ​​the military shirt and trousers. This proves that pressure and violence were applied on Gasparyan before his death. According to Ruben Martirosyan, who has studied all the documents, one of the firearms entry holes has 18 mm x 7 mm diameter.

“But the machine gun attached to Gasparyan fires 5.45 mm bullets. This means that Gasparyan was killed not with a machine gun, but with an AKM weapon that fired 7.62 caliber bullets, and Gasparyan’s machine gun has nothing to do with his murder. “It is fake material evidence,” said the human rights expert.

Gasparyan’s dead body was dragged from the scene of incident to a fake scene

Gasparyan’s relatives were convinced from the beginning that Arthur had died not in the guard post, during a combat duty, but in another place, that his body had been moved, and that the new place had been artificially turned into a scene of incident.

“After the murder, normally absorbed marks appear, when blood flows out of the corpse, appearing on the clothes. However, the rubbed traces should clearly indicate that the body was moved. The examination was carried out at the insistence of the aggrieved party. In the conclusion No. 14 / HM, the expert states that “rubbed” traces were found “on the left, upper front half, lower part, other parts of the back surface of the sleeveless T-shirt”, “upper front half, lower part, other parts of the sleeved T-shirt surface.” Rubbed marks were also found on Gasparyan’s boots.


1. Gasparyan was killed in another place.

2. Gasparyan was killed not with a machine gun attached to him, but with a large-caliber AKM rifle. The rifle shells, which were the real tool of the murder, were concealed. Gasparyan was not on the watch post at that time, he was not on duty.

3. After the murder, Gasparyan’s body was transported in a clumsy way, dragging the body face down and then face up. The scene was destroyed. A new, fake scene was created.

4. Gasparyan was beaten and tortured before the murder.

“We need to understand that the investigators-prosecutors are not blind, they have seen and recorded all this, but they do not wish to call it a murder, arrest and punish the murderers, because, from the beginning, out of personal or group interests, they conducted a false criminal investigation. Surprisingly, the current authorities, knowing all this, do not stop the series of crimes committed by this criminal body. As a human rights activist who has nothing to do with politics, I have to say with regret that the crimes committed by the judiciary are even more heinous than ever before. Today we are dealing with an open, unlimited infringement,” concludes Ruben Martirosyan.

He monitored such a way of working not only in Gasparyan’s case, but also in ten criminal cases known to him, in which he represents the victims.

Syuzan Simonyan

Pin It on Pinterest