What Ruling Will The Constitutional Court Make? Are The Facts Put Fo

WHAT RULING WILL THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT MAKE? ARE THE FACTS PUT FORWARD BY R. HOVHANNISYAN’S PARTY GROUNDED?

March 14 2013

Yesterday the Constitutional Court concluded the examination of the
combined case based on the petitions filed by candidates for president
Raffi Hovhannisyan and Andreas Ghukasyan. The candidates for president
are challenging the Election of the President of the Republic of
Armenia Decision made by the Central Election Commission on February
25. The ruling of the Constitutional Court will be made public today.

In response to a question of whether the petitioner’s
arguments were grounded, Margarit Yesayan, a member of the Republican
Party of Armenia (RPA) parliamentary group who had participated in
two sessions and had followed the trial, said: “My impression is that
those petitions lacked facts and were based merely on assessments,
emotions, and some quotes. I didn’t see proofs that processes that
could have had an impact on the results of the presidential election
had taken place. The Q&A of the Court members also made that clear.

Raffi Hovhannisyan and his representatives filed a 16-page petition,
a large part of which was assessments, another large part was quotes
from this or that document, and only on a few final pages, facts
were presented. However, those were not the facts that could allow
the Court to make a ruling in favor of the petitioners.” Ms. Yesayan
stated that she continued to claim that neither Raffi Hovhannisyan,
nor his followers and supporters had ever imagined that Mr.

Hovhannisyan would win such a big percentage, therefore they hadn’t
prepared for further action. Then M. Yesayan went into detail: “There
is no petition after the election itself. R. Hovhannisyan’s supporters
claim that there were incidents at night; that is why they didn’t have
time to do that. But the deadline was 6 p.m. the next day, and if they
had wanted and had had enough evidence, they could have managed to do
that also from the time perspective. Whereas they didn’t do that. Ms.

Postanjyan proposed to open the sacks of all polling places, which
contained the ballots and the records. The Constitutional Court
received that proposal yesterday afternoon. With the best will in the
world, one couldn’t have done that technically, since the deadline
for the Constitutional Court’s ruling is 6 p.m. today. Or the 120
polling places, with regard to which they had filed petitions; 3-4
polling places have been opened, and even if we agree that those
votes were for Raffi Hovhannisyan, and they are added to his votes,
the margin between 58% and 37% is so large that it could not have an
impact on the final results.” For comparison, Ms. Yesayan recalled
how juridically correct the petition filed by Stepan Demirchyan’s
supporters in 2003 had been drawn up. “With the best will in the
world, I think, the Constitutional Court couldn’t have satisfied
Raffi Hovhannisyan’s and Andrias Ghukasyan’s demands, since the
parties didn’t have and haven’t presented enough evidence to the
Constitutional Court.” Stepan Safaryan, the Heritage Party secretary,
on the other hand, said with regard to the petition’s being based on
assessments: “It points out all the polling places, where the fact
that the election was rigged is obvious not only to the Heritage Party,
but also to international observers and society. Yesterday R.

Hovhannisyan’s representatives filed a motion in the Constitutional
Court to open the sacks of the polling places. If the Constitutional
Court wants to do something about the results of the election,
then it could have opened them; why would it refuse, as the polling
place commissions did, sitting idly by for five days?” In response
to an observation that it was not possible technically, taking
into account the deadline of the Constitutional Court’s ruling,
Mr. Safaryan said: “The future of Armenian democracy has nothing to
do with the Constitutional Court’s not having time. The future of the
Republic of Armenia is too important and society’s trust in elections
is more valuable, than the judge’s having or not having time. The
Constitutional Court can extend the deadline and examine the case
on its merits. If it doesn’t do that, it gives a nonsensical reason
for that to carry out the government’s instruction. The trial proved
that society is right, that the doubts are reasonable, and that the
election was rigged. State bodies in the shape of the Constitutional
Court avoid revealing the dirt, since they are not allowed to do that.

I have never pinned hopes on the Constitutional Court. The situation
can be rescued only by the people; the resolution is in the hands of
the people.” Tatev HARUTYUNYAN