The Armenian government has submitted for public discussion a draft law on persons missing as a result of military actions. Officially, the initiative is presented as a comprehensive solution aimed at regulating search procedures, identification processes, and the social protection of families of the missing. However, a closer and more thorough analysis of the draft’s provisions and proposed mechanisms reveals a more complex picture. Despite several clear improvements compared to existing regulations, the legislative package contains serious structural weaknesses. These shortcomings prevent it from being assessed as a final and fully adequate solution to the problem of missing persons.
Rights of missing persons and their families
The draft law formally establishes the rights of missing persons and their family members. These include the right to receive reliable information about the causes and circumstances of disappearance, the right to information about the person’s whereabouts, and, in the event of death, the right to information about the circumstances of death and the burial site. Families are also granted the right to receive the body or remains, if identified.
The law also defines a set of social benefits for families of missing persons. Most of these benefits already exist in current legislation but are now consolidated into a single legal framework. Among them are one-time financial assistance in the event of long-term illness or death of a family member of a serviceman declared missing by court order, housing support for families without housing or living in emergency conditions, and preferential access to higher education with tuition-free admission for children (up to 27 years old), parents, and spouses of missing servicemen.
In addition, family members retain the right to pensions and allowances under sectoral legislation, as well as government-defined financial assistance. Tax exemptions are also предусмотрены, including relief from property and vehicle taxes. The draft further introduces the provision of social and psychological assistance to families of missing persons.
Search procedures and conditions for suspension
The law clearly defines the procedure for submitting a search request. Applications may be filed by family members, state authorities, or civil society organizations. Once submitted, information about the missing person is entered into a unified registry.
The authorized body is required to send inquiries to state and local government institutions, as well as to international humanitarian organizations that may possess relevant information. Search activities may be prolonged, but the law requires mandatory reporting on the measures taken and the current status at least once every 15 days.
Search operations are to be suspended within three days after determining the person’s whereabouts, burial site, or the location of remains, with corresponding updates made in the registry. Importantly, if a person is declared deceased by court decision but the body has not been found, the search must continue.
The draft designates the National Security Service as the authorized body responsible for missing persons. Its mandate includes coordinating search activities, collecting and processing information from state bodies, conducting search operations, verifying identification data, communicating with families, and providing information about the progress and results of searches, as well as the causes of disappearance.
The core problem: institutional weakness
Despite its advantages, the draft law demonstrates a fundamental institutional flaw. By assigning responsibility for missing persons to the National Security Service, the state frames the issue primarily within a security and investigative logic.
However, the issue of missing persons is not merely a legal or criminal matter. It is first and foremost a humanitarian and social problem. This approach creates a serious risk that families will remain secondary stakeholders, while access to information may be restricted under the pretext of “investigative interests.”
In many countries, missing persons’ cases are handled by civilian or mixed institutional models that ensure greater transparency, accountability, and trust. The proposed Armenian model lacks these safeguards and risks reinforcing a closed, силовой подход to an issue that demands empathy, openness, and sustained communication.
Avoidance of state responsibility
Another major weakness lies in the vague formulation of state responsibility. The law speaks extensively about search procedures, information provision, and social assistance, yet it almost entirely avoids the question of accountability.
There is no clear mechanism addressing what happens if searches yield no results for years, or if state bodies fail to perform their duties effectively. The absence of defined responsibility creates a legal vacuum in which prolonged inaction carries no consequences.
Moreover, the social benefits package largely reproduces existing measures and does not offer fundamentally new solutions. Financial assistance, tax exemptions, and educational benefits, while important, do not compensate for the long-term uncertainty in which families of missing persons are forced to live.
An unresolved moral and legal contradiction
Ultimately, the law fails to resolve the central moral and legal contradiction faced by families. In reality, they live with loss. Legally, however, they are compelled to remain in a prolonged state of uncertainty, without clear timelines, intermediate legal statuses, or closure.
As a result, the proposed law represents a step forward, but not a decisive one. Without a shift toward a more humanitarian institutional model and without clearly articulated state accountability, the system risks remaining what it already is — a framework of procedures without responsibility.