The cost of health rights violations in the army

In Armenia, human rights protections in closed institutions remain systemic concerns rather than a matter of isolated violations. The armed forces, as a closed and hierarchical structure, show some of the most acute manifestations of this problem, particularly regarding the right to health care.

From recruitment to the completion of service, the protection of the rights of conscripts and service members often depends not on the efficiency of the system, but on individual interventions, appeals and sometimes pure chance. In practice, rights are neither systematized nor automatically guaranteed. 

Expert assessments show that the problem is profound and requires structural changes rather than disconnected solutions.

The son of Armen Poghosyan, whose name changed at his request, has bronchial asthma, yet he was drafted into the army. 

“For three years, they gave him a deferment, but today, somehow, bronchial asthma turned into allergic rhinitis,” Poghosyan said, adding that his son cannot leave the house without an inhaler and frequently experiences shortness of breath. Poghosyan said doctors at the military commissariat checked his son’s pulse with their fingers because the equipment was not working. The doctor who conducted the examination was not the doctor named in the official documents. “We appealed, they took him back and conducted a normal examination, but in the documents, they wrote whatever they wanted,” Poghosyan said, adding that there are many similar cases in his circle in which health issues were ignored and young men were drafted into the army.

Conscription as a failing first filter

Data presented by human rights activist Nazeli Movsisyan of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Vanadzor Office offers a critical entry point for understanding where the problem begins.

During the summer and winter conscription cycles of 2025, about 80% of the 75 applications received by the organization were related to health issues. This alone suggests that the system is failing in its most basic function: serving as an initial screening mechanism.

More troubling, however, is the nature of these complaints. Many cases do not simply involve disagreements over medical conclusions, but instead point to incomplete or inadequate examinations, raising serious concerns about the reliability of the entire assessment process.

According to Movsisyan, it is common for only one or two of a conscript’s health issues to be examined, while others remain overlooked. This not only violates the principle of comprehensive medical assessment, but also creates a risk that the conscript’s health will deteriorate during service.

This situation can be characterized as “formal compliance without substance”: the system formally performs its function but, in reality, does not ensure the protection of the human right to health. Here, the status of “fit” ceases to be a medical conclusion and becomes an administrative decision.

When a conscript is advised to undergo examinations at his own expense and present the results, it means the state is effectively abdicating its obligation to provide a free and complete medical assessment. This is particularly problematic within the logic of a closed system, where the individual does not have equal opportunities to protect his rights.

In such cases, an appeal becomes not just a right, but a necessity. However, a system based on appeal mechanisms cannot be considered effective, because it implies that a violation must first occur and only then can the right be restored.

Data from the Human Rights Defender’s Office further underscores the scale of the issue. Of approximately 900 complaints received in 2025, 744 concerned health-related matters, pointing not only to the magnitude of the problem, but also to its systemic nature.

According to Albert Danielyan, chief specialist in the Department for the Protection of the Rights of Servicemen and Their Families, interventions by the Human Rights Defender’s Office frequently result in additional medical examinations and, in some cases, the revision of prior decisions. This raises a fundamental question: If previously overlooked or newly identified conditions emerge after such interventions, why are they not detected during the initial assessment?

Danielyan also highlighted structural gaps in the process. There are no clear limits on the number of examinations a conscript may undergo, while conscripts themselves are not given the option to involve a doctor they trust. This not only restricts their right to independent medical input, but also undermines the transparency of the process. In effect, the system operates as both evaluator and decision-maker, placing the conscript in an inherently unequal position.

If deficiencies at the recruitment stage can be described as a “failure of the filter,” during military service they risk evolving into far more serious, and at times irreversible, consequences.

In a recent briefing, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said, “The decision to commit suicide indicates that we have a problem related to psychological resilience in the army.” This framing raises an important question: Does it reflect a genuine acknowledgment of systemic issues, or does it risk shifting responsibility onto the individual resilience of service members?

Data from the Armenian Military Prosecutor’s Office adds a more troubling dimension. In 2025, 2,248 incidents were recorded in the armed forces and other troops, 155 more than in 2024, when 2,093 cases were recorded. This increase points to the limited effectiveness of existing preventive mechanisms within the system.

The trend is particularly concerning when it comes to deaths by suicide. Since 2020, approximately 40 such cases have been recorded, underscoring the persistence of a problem that cannot be reduced to individual psychological factors alone.

According to Anna Melikyan, a legal expert at the NGO Protection of Rights Without Borders, cases of suicide and violence recorded in the army should be viewed not as isolated incidents, but as a continuation of preceding processes. According to her, these cases are often preceded by prolonged humiliation, psychological pressure and nonstatutory relations.

The Prime Minister’s statement that the problems in the army are related to psychological resilience could, according to experts, create a misplaced emphasis. The issue is not that individuals have different levels of resilience, but rather the type of environment in which they find themselves. If the system permits violence, humiliation and pressure, responsibility cannot be shifted onto the individual. This approach is dangerous because it can justify systemic failures.

The data presented by Melikyan shows that the majority of individuals convicted in cases of violence in the army do not serve actual sentences. Suspended sentences, reconciliation mechanisms and accelerated procedures create a situation in which legal responsibility becomes merely formal.

Informal rules within the army often carry more weight than official regulations. A deeply entrenched criminal subculture establishes codes of behavior that contradict formal law, yet function as the system’s “real rules.” In such an environment, the inaction or tacit tolerance of command structures only reinforces and legitimizes these practices.

Public attitudes toward military service further reflect the depth of the problem. When families exhaust every possible means to avoid conscription, it signals more than individual fear; it points to a profound lack of trust in the system. This distrust is not accidental. It is the result of repeated systemic failures that continue to go unaddressed.