STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A1+
20 February, 2008
Yerevan, 20 February 2008 – The International Election Observation
Mission (IEOM) for the 19 February presidential election in Armenia is
a joint undertaking of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA),
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the
European Parliament (EP).
The election is assessed against OSCE and Council of Europe commitments
and standards for democratic elections and national legislation. This
statement of preliminary findings and conclusions is delivered prior to
the completion of the election process, including the tabulation and
announcement of final results, the handling of possible post-election
day complaints or appeals, and the instalment into office of the newly
elected President. The final assessment of the election will depend,
in part, on the conduct of the remaining stages of the election
process as well as on the engagement of election stakeholders with
the commitments for the democratic process as a whole. The OSCE/ODIHR
will issue a comprehensive final report, including recommendations for
potential improvements, approximately two months after the completion
of the election process. The OSCE PA will present its report at its
Standing Committee meeting on 21 February 2008 and the PACE during
its April 2008 Plenary Session.
The institutions represented in the IEOM thank the authorities of
the Republic of Armenia and stand ready to continue to support them
and civil society of Armenia in the conduct of democratic elections.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
The 19 February presidential election in the Republic of Armenia
was administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe
commitments and standards. The high-State authorities made genuine
efforts to address shortcomings noted in previous elections, including
the legal framework, and repeatedly stated their intention to conduct
democratic elections. However, further improvements and commensurate
political will are required to address remaining challenges such as:
the absence of a clear separation between State and party functions,
the lack of public confidence in the electoral process and ensuring
equal treatment of election contestants.
The conduct of the count did not contribute to reducing an existing
suspicion amongst election stakeholders. The CEC ensured a high level
of transparency, except in the consideration of complaints that were
for the most part dealt with in informal sessions. Although consistent
with the election code, this process did not allow the presence of
candidate proxies, observers and media, thus undermining trust.
The field of nine candidates offered voters a genuine choice. Many
candidates campaigned actively and were able to discuss their
programmes with voters. The authorities made efforts to provide a
permissive campaign environment. The freedoms of assembly, association
and expression were generally respected but on several occasions
citizens were obstructed in exercising their right to attend campaign
events. The Prime Minister retained his office while campaigning for
president, which awarded him campaign advantages.
During the official campaign which started on 21 January, the media
overall treated all candidates equitably. Candidates received mostly
positive or neutral coverage while one candidate received extensive
negative coverage across the broadcast media, including on public
media. News programmes were largely devoid of viewpoints critical of
the ruling authorities.
Positive aspects of the pre-election process included:
Pluralism was generally respected. Under an improved framework,
candidate registration was inclusive and non-discriminatory.
Candidates could freely present their views at public meetings and
actively campaigned. The electoral authorities were well organized
and well prepared, and implemented the amended legal framework.
A comprehensive training programme for Precinct Election Commissions
(PECs) was implemented with an emphasis on following correct vote
count procedures.
Lines of jurisdiction to the courts were clarified by the December
2007 legal amendments.
Public service announcements were aired in the media, and various
high-State officials underscored existing guarantees regarding voters’
freedom of choice, the secrecy of the vote, and the security of the
ballot, thereby contributing to public confidence.
Efforts to enhance the quality and accuracy of the National Register
of Voters continued.
A large number of domestic election observation groups were registered,
indicating an active and engaged non-governmental sector. However,
the following issues raised concerns:
The composition of most leadership "troikas" of election commissions
(chairperson, deputy chairperson and secretary) raised concern about
possible control over the election administration by one political
interest.
The pre-election environment became increasingly tense, including
public order incidents at campaign events and several attacks on
campaign offices and activists.
A concern exists that electoral choices of public-sector employees,
a segment of society vulnerable to pressure, can have consequences
for individual livelihoods. This questioned the ability of citizens
to hold opinions without fear of retribution.
The needless collection of citizens’ passport data created public
anxiety about possible election fraud.
This was compounded by the persistence of unsubstantiated allegations
of possible vote-buying, lack of secrecy of the vote and impersonation
of voters.
The National Commission on Television and Radio (NCTR) did not
adequately fulfill its mandate to monitor compliance of the media
with legal provisions. On election day, the conduct of opening and
voting was assessed in positive terms in a large majority of polling
stations (PS) visited. Polling was conducted in a relatively calm
atmosphere, although tension or unrest were noted in some 6 per cent
of PSs visited, which on occasion resulted in violent incidents.
Unauthorized persons were noted in over 10 per cent of PSs visited. In
some 3 per cent of PSs visited, interference in the election process
was noted, mostly by candidate proxies.
The secrecy of the vote was improved but further progress is required
especially for military voting.
Although declining, group voting remained a problem.
In isolated cases, serious problems were noted, including: campaigning,
attempts to influence voters’ choices, intimidation of voters,
‘controlled voting’, vote-buying, and transportation of voters from
one PS to another. Formal complaints were filed in very few PSs
visited. The count was assessed as ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ in some 16 per
cent of PSs visited. Problems noted included: not announcing aloud
the number of votes for each candidate, inconsistent determination
of valid votes, the use of mobile phones, and the frequent failure
to post results protocols publicly.
In several PSs visited, IEOM observers reported deliberate
falsification of data entered into the protocol.
Background
The 19 February 2008 presidential election was the fifth to be held
since independence. The incumbent President, Robert Kocharian, served
two consecutive terms and under the provisions of the Constitution
was not eligible to contest the election. If, in the first round, no
candidate receives an absolute majority of votes, a second round will
take place 14 days after the first round between the two candidates
with the highest numbers of votes.
The 2007 parliamentary elections were assessed as having "demonstrated
improvement and were conducted largely in accordance with OSCE
commitments and other international standards for democratic elections"
while the 2003 presidential election fell short of these standards. On
several occasions, during the election period, high State officials
declared their intention to hold democratic elections in line with
OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards.
According to the authorities, this intention was conveyed to lower
levels of the State administration.
During the pre-election period, a lack of confidence in the election
process was noticeable. There were widespread allegations, including
on vote-buying, opportunities for multiple voting, printing of excess
ballot papers, issuance of ID documents to facilitate election
fraud, and coercion of voters. Most could not be substantiated
and in some instances appeared overstated. In order to increase
public trust, several public statements were made by State officials
(including the Ombudsman, the Prosecutor General and the CEC Chair)
and election stakeholders reassuring voters of their freedom of
choice, the secrecy of the vote, emphasizing legal penalties for
election violations and underlining the integrity of the election
process. Prime Minister Sargsyan’s presidential candidacy was endorsed
by outgoing President Robert Kocharian in a television interview on
16 February and by Prosperous Armenia, a coalition partner of the
Republican Party. Heritage Party, in opposition to the government,
supported Levon Ter-Petrossian’s candidacy.
Legal Framework
The Constitution guarantees civil and political rights, and fundamental
freedoms. The Election Code provides a good basis to conduct democratic
elections, if implemented in good faith. Some weaknesses, however,
remain. The amendments passed in November and December 2007 address
some previous recommendations made by the OSCE/ODIHR and the Council of
Europe’s Venice Commission. The most significant changes introduce the
right to selfnomination; remove the need for prospective candidates
to gather supporting signatures; increase the deposit required of
candidates to AMD 8 million (some EUR 17,000); enable citizens to vote
at their place of ‘actual’ rather than ‘legal’ residence; provide
for checking and stamping of voters’ identity documents when voting
(aimed at preventing multiple voting); and provide that an individual
may assist only one other voter.
Election Administration
The election was administered by the CEC, 41 Territorial Election
Commissions (TECs) and 1,923 Precinct Election Commissions (PECs). The
CEC and TECs are permanent bodies, while PECs are temporarily
appointed. The CEC has eight members, five of which are appointed by
party factions represented in the National Assembly, one member by
the President, and the Council of Chairmen of the Republic of Armenia
Courts nominated two ‘judicial servants’. Each CEC member nominated
one member to each TEC, who in turn nominated one member to each PEC
(hereafter, the ‘nomination chain’). Each commission has a Chair,
Deputy Chair and Secretary (‘the troika’), who were elected at each
commission’s first session. By law, all election commissioners must
have undergone a certification process.
A large majority of TEC troikas and PEC Chairs were elected from among
persons appointed through the Republican Party, Prosperous Armenia and
presidential nomination chains. This raises concerns about possible
control over the election administration by one political interest. The
CEC and most TECs appeared well-organized and well-prepared to conduct
the election.
Their preparations respected legal deadlines.
Comprehensive efforts were made at training PEC members before
the election and some 164 PEC training sessions were held. PEC
troikas received additional training on vote count and protocol
completion procedures. The CEC and the police, responsible for
voter registration, organized for public service announcements to be
aired on television. The CEC administered the election process in an
overall transparent manner, inter alia through publishing decisions
and information, holding press conferences, and arranging for the
publication of PEC-level results. The CEC held only a few sessions
but they were attended by observers, candidate representatives and the
media. It adopted numerous decisions supplementing provisions of the
Election Code, including one which introduced additional safeguards
for the security of the ballot.
Candidate Registration
All nine prospective presidential candidates were able to register
under straightforward legal provisions that were implemented in
an inclusive and non-discriminatory manner. The field of candidates
allowed for a high degree of political competition, and offered voters
genuine electoral choices. The candidates were: Arthur Baghdasaryan,
(former Speaker of Parliament and leader of Orinats Yerkir – Rule of
Law Party); Artashes Geghamyan (leader of the National Unity Party);
Tigran Karapetyan (leader of the People’s Party); Aram Harutiunyan
(leader of the National Accord Party); Vahan Hovhannisyan (Vice-speaker
of Parliament and candidate of Armenian Revolutionary Federation
Dashnaktsutiun); Vazgen Manukyan (former Prime Minister and leader
of the National Democratic Union); Arman Melikyan (self-nominated
candidate); Serzh Sargsyan (incumbent Prime Minister and candidate
of the ruling Republican Party); and Levon Ter-Petrossian (former
President, and self-nominated candidate).
The Election Code entitles each candidate to appoint proxies and
confers on them a wide variety of rights, including appealing against
election commissions’ decisions. Some candidates made use of this
provision and registered high numbers of proxies.
Voter Registration
By law, the police (the Passport and Visa Department – OVIR) are
responsible for maintaining the National Register of Voters, which
is updated on an ongoing basis. Efforts continued to improve the
accuracy and quality of the voter lists. Measures were implemented,
including doorto- door verification by the police, public display on
the CEC’s website and at polling places, and a hotline for voters
to check their inclusion on the list. As of 17 February, 2,328,320
voters were registered. According to OVIR, 19,024 persons were
registered to vote at the place of their actual residence as of 18
February. According to data published on the CEC website, persons
registered at their actual place of residence had been removed from
the voter lists at their legal residence.
Election Campaign
Most candidates campaigned actively, but only Mr. Hovhannisyan,
Mr. Sargsyan, and Mr. Ter- Petrossian campaigned country-wide. Overall,
candidates were able to convey their campaign messages without
interference, and freedom of movement and assembly were mostly
respected.
Nevertheless, on six occasions citizens were unduly impeded to attend
campaign events, sometimes at the behest of village heads, owners of
transportation companies, or police officers. These incidents involved
campaign events held by two candidates in opposition to the incumbent
authorities, Mr. Baghdasaryan and Mr. Ter-Petrossian. Candidates used
posters and billboards as means of campaigning, with Mr. Sargsyan’s
campaign materials very visible in Yerevan and in most regional
centres. By law, ‘Community Leaders’ were obliged to designate
places, at least one per precinct, where candidates may display
campaign material. This provision was inconsistently implemented,
e.g. some mayors had designated space while others had not. Posters
were frequently placed in ‘non-designated’ locations, and, in contrast
to the 2007 parliamentary elections, were systematically removed by
unknown persons. Campaign material for Mr. Sargsyan was posted in
non-designated spaces, inside and outside publicly owned buildings,
without being removed. Campaign rhetoric became more acrimonious
as the campaign developed. Levon Ter-Petrossian frequently directed
derogatory comments at Serzh Sargsyan and President Kocharian, while
the latter sharply criticized Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s presidential record
and his current campaign. Violence against four of Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s
campaign activists in two separate incidents and eight attacks
on campaign offices used by three candidates (Mr. Baghdasaryan,
Mr. Sargsyan and Mr. Ter-Petrossian) contributed to the increasingly
tense pre-election atmosphere. The legal framework provides for
equal campaign opportunities. It prohibits candidates from "any
abuse of official position in order to gain advantage" during the
campaign. It forbids national and self-government officials from
using their authority to influence the free expression of citizens’
will by creating unequal conditions, or showing partiality. It
does not define whether and under what conditions government and
local government officials and employees can participate in a
candidate’s campaign. Favourable treatment of a candidate by local
self-government officials led to a blurring of the separation between
State and political party functions. This, combined with unclear legal
provisions, created de facto unequal campaign conditions. Many city
district community leaders and town mayors campaigned actively for
Mr. Sargsyan’s election. While some took a leave of absence, others did
not. The Republican Party used a number of pre-existing party offices
located in local self-government buildings as campaign offices. At
one campaign event for Mr. Sargsyan, OSCE/ODIHR EOM observers saw
uniformed police handing out Republican Party flags; at another,
Mr. Sargsyan’s police cortege displayed similar flags. Controversy
arose about Serzh Sargsyan actively campaigning while continuing to
serve as Prime Minister. The CEC clarified that the Prime Minister
could campaign without resigning. Mr. Sargsyan gained additional
publicity and campaign advantages through his official position. A
concern exists that electoral choices of public-sector employees,
a segment of society vulnerable to pressure, can have consequences
for individual livelihoods. This questioned the ability of citizens to
hold opinions without fear of retribution. The OSCE/ODIHR EOM received
three first-hand accounts of public employees who had been directed by
their superior to attend Mr. Sargsyan’s campaign events. In another
two instances, local government employees were told that they were
free to leave their post to attend his rallies. Public sector and
local government employees, especially school teachers, attended
Mr. Sargsyan’s rallies in large numbers, frequently during working
hours. The needless collection of citizens’ passport data created
public anxiety about possible election fraud. In one instance,
schoolchildren were requested by their teachers to bring passport
details of their parents to school. In another case, a sheet
for collecting such data contained a column headed ‘Republican
Party’, suggesting that the information gathered was used for party
purposes. Unsubstantiated allegations of possible vote-buying, lack of
secrecy of the vote and impersonation of voters persisted throughout
the campaign, and affected public confidence.
Media
Television is the most influential information source but the OSCE
Representative on Freedom of the Media noted that "limited pluralism
in the broadcasting sector remains a major problem". While there has
been significant progress in improving legislation, in December 2007,
the Secretary General of the Council of Europe pointed out that "the
current situation of the Armenian media in general does not meet
the standards of the Council of Europe". Censorship is forbidden
by law. However, the Criminal Code contains provisions which make
libel and insult punishable by imprisonment or fines. The Election
Code provides that public and private media are required to present
"impartial and non-judgmental" information about candidates’ campaigns,
and that candidates shall be "guaranteed equal conditions for access
to mass media".
During the official campaign period, there was extensive coverage
of election-related events, including speeches of the President,
on broadcast media through news, free and paid advertisements,
and various talkshows. Levon Ter-Petrossian declined to appear in
the latter and Serzh Sargsyan used his right to participate only
once. There were no TV debates between candidates. Candidates were
able to convey their messages in free airtime provided on H1 (up to 60
minutes per candidate) and on Public Radio (up to 120 minutes). The
public media complied with their legal obligations in this regard;
however public TV started the broadcast of free and paid spots at
17.15 hours, again outside the main viewing hours, despite previous
criticism. H1 presented reasonably equitable coverage of all nine
candidates in terms of airtime.
Candidates received between 21 per cent (Mr. Ter-Petrossian), 19
per cent (Mr. Sargsyan) and 14 and 13 per cent (Mr. Baghdasaryan and
Mr. Geghamyan) of the total time allocated to all candidates.1 Whereas
the tone of Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s coverage mostly contained negative
remarks, the other eight candidates were presented in a generally
positive or neutral manner.
Serzh Sargsyan received most coverage by five of the six monitored
private TV channels, primarily in his capacity as presidential
candidate. In particular, Armenia TV gave him about double the coverage
of any other candidate. He had more positive coverage than the other
candidates and news broadcasts rarely aired critical remarks toward
him or government policy. His rallies were consistently shown with
one day delay and using similar footage. This gave the impression
that specific editorial policies were applied and questions the
editorial independence of media outlets. The monitored TV channels
were largely devoid of critical remarks regarding seven of the other
eight candidates.
One candidate, Levon Ter-Petrossian, received extensive negative
coverage across the TV stations monitored, especially on H1, H2, ALM
TV, Kentron, and Yerkir Media. In part, the volume of this coverage
arose because President Kocharian and some candidates, in particular
Artashes Geghamyan, frequently criticized him. Conversely, almost all
broadcast media in their news programmes ignored Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s
comments criticizing the incumbent authorities. H1, in its news
programmes, showed selective coverage of his campaign messages with
distorted footage giving an impression of unreceptive and small
campaign audiences. Footage used by Mr. Ter-Petrossian in his free
and paid airtime presented images of enthusiastic support at well
attended rallies. While the media made efforts to treat all candidates
equitably, these factors raise some concern over the media’s full
respect for the OSCE commitment to provide impartial information for
citizens to make a well-informed choice.
Print media is more pluralistic and independent, but plays a limited
role in informing the public due to low circulation. The State-funded
newspaper Hayastani Hanrapetutyun gave Mr.Sargsyan around 45 per cent
of print space devoted to candidates with generally positive tone.
1 The other candidates received the following time share: Vahan
Hovhannisyan and Mr. Manukyan 11 per cent; Aram Harutiunyan and Tigran
Karapetyan 4 per cent and Arman Melikyan 3 per cent.
The private paper Haykakan Zhamanak offered Mr. Ter-Petrossian 56 per
cent of its print space devoted to candidates with mostly positive
coverage.
Complaints and Appeals
Recent legal amendments clarified provisions for complaints and
appeals, and thereby addressed issues regarding jurisdiction raised
by the Constitutional Court following the 2007 elections. The amended
legislation provides that the newly established Administrative Courts –
rather than the Courts of First Instance – have responsibility to hear
election-related complaints and appeals, except in cases related to
the voter list. Therefore, citizens can seek legal remedies against
administrative decisions, election violations, and restrictions of
their rights with a variety of bodies. However, the Election Code does
not specify that election commissions must take formal decisions on
complaints received. It also lacks clarity whether specific election
offenses are criminal or administrative offenses, and consequently
which court has jurisdiction to adjudicate. While the CEC is charged
with monitoring adherence to campaign-related provisions, the National
Commission on Television and Radio (NCTR) should monitor the media
compliance. The Prosecutor General is responsible for election
offenses under the Criminal Code. The Prosecutor General’s office
established a working group to monitor election-related criminal
complaints. They received a total of 61 complaints of which 22 came
from reviewing media reports and the rest from citizens, candidates,
CEC and parties; 19 cases are under criminal investigation.
In the pre-election period, the CEC received 55 complaints, largely
filed by Levon Ter- Petrossian’s proxies. For the most part, the CEC
did not hear complaints in a formal session, however, on 17 February,
convened an extraordinary session at short notice in which they
considered draft decisions on complaints. In a single decision,
the CEC found that none of the 25 complaints contained violations
of campaign procedures. There was little discussion or reference
to the facts contained in the complaints and complainants were
not present. The CEC indicated that they had attempted to notify
the complainant. This raises questions about the effectiveness of
legal remedy sought by the complainant. The Constitutional Court
considered two cases filed by candidates. In the first, it ruled
that Arman Melikyan as a presidential candidate did not have the
right under constitutional provisions to file what was equivalent to
a constitutional challenge to the legal provision that voting does
not take place outside Armenia. The Court, on 11 February, heard a
second case, brought by Levon Ter-Petrossian. The candidate claimed to
face an "insurmountable obstacle" because of alleged unequal campaign
conditions provided by public TV. The Court found that the claim did
not constitute an "insurmountable obstacle" in the sense foreseen by
the Constitution, but indicated that it could fall within the ambit
of other authorities and bodies. On 6 February, Levon Ter-Petrossian
filed a complaint with the CEC regarding H1 coverage of his election
campaign and requesting the TV channel to provide equal conditions
for all candidates. The CEC passed the complaint to the NCTR which
on 11 February rejected the complaint on formal grounds stating that
the provided evidence only referred to the period prior to the start
of the official campaign.
None of the presidential candidates is a woman. Arthur Baghdasaryan’s
campaign was managed by a woman. Twelve members of the National
Assembly and one government minister are women. While two of the
eight CEC members are women, there are only 36 women TEC members
(some 18 per cent). Six TEC are all male and only three TECs have a
female chairperson. PECs were mostly chaired by men in 75 per cent
of PSs visited, only one in four PECs had a female chairperson.
Domestic and International Observers
The law provides for international and domestic election
observation. The CEC accredited observers from six international
organizations and over 12,000 observers from 39 Armenian NGOs,
including "It’s Your Choice" (which intended to deploy some 4,000
observers) and the "Free Society Institute" (which intended to deploy
some 1,600 observers). Domestic observers were present in 85 per cent
of polling stations visited.
Election Day and Vote Count
The CEC announced a voter turnout of about 69 per cent. The overall
conduct of opening and voting was assessed in positive terms in a large
majority (97 and 95 per cent respectively) of polling stations (PS)
visited; these figures were almost identical to the 2007 elections.
Polling was conducted in a relatively calm atmosphere, although tension
or unrest was noted in over 6 per cent of PSs visited, which in part
seems to have been caused by disputes among proxies and PECs, as well
as overcrowding (15 per cent). A few isolated violent incidents were
reported. Observers received first-hand testimony from two proxies
who were assaulted at PS 28/07 in Kotayk region and in Avan community
(Yerevan), and from four activists from Abovyan and Davitashen who
claimed to have been assaulted and bore signs of physical injury.
Three PEC members were forcibly ejected from PS 07/05 in Yerevan by
persons unknown.
Unauthorized persons were noted in over 10 per cent of PSs visited,
including police (some 6 per cent) and local government officials. In
some 3 per cent of PSs visited, interference in the election process
was noted, mostly by candidate proxies. The secrecy of the vote
improved compared to the 2007 election, partly as a result of new
rules on repositioning voting screens.
Further progress is required, especially with regard to military
voting. Although a declining phenomenon, group voting remained a
problem in some 9 per cent of PSs visited, and in some 2 per cent
some voters were showing marked ballots to other persons. On election
day, PECs had up to six voter lists, including a ‘supplementary list’
of persons registered to vote on election day. The number of persons
registered on election day was not publicly announced. Following the
recent legal amendments, the official PEC result protocols do not
contain information on the number of registered voters which only
allows voters to know the voter turnout at a PEC in absolute terms,
thereby diminishing transparency. In several isolated cases, serious
problems were noted in some PSs visited, including: campaigning (32
cases), attempts to influence voters in their choices (18 cases),
intimidation of voters (22 cases), one person ‘assisting’ numerous
voters, turning a voter away for inappropriate reasons (13 cases), and
voting with a pre-marked ballot (4 cases). A bus driver was observed
in the vicinity of PS 35/28 (Shirak region) with multiple passports,
and in two incidents IEOM observers saw persons with passports in their
hands being collected from a Yerevan market. Observers reported nine
instances where persons were transported from one PS to another. The
IEOM confirmed a number of allegations of vote buying schemes. On
18 February, in the village of Vardablur (TEC 31, Lori region),
observers interviewed villagers who confirmed that villagers had
been offered AMD 5,000 (EUR 11) to sell their votes. A similar
vote-buying scheme was also noted in Bazum (Lori). In the vicinity
of a Yerevan PS, observers saw voters receiving money from a man
who was ticking entries from a list of names. Few reports indicated
possible controlled voting, e.g military personnel were given pens
of different coloured ink to mark their ballots. An isolated case
of ‘ballot stuffing’ was witnessed at PS 23/24 (Gegharkunik region)
where a candidate proxy placed some 15 ballots into the ballot box,
after being validated by a PEC member. Proxies were present in almost
all PSs visited. Although the proxies of one candidate made numerous
complaints to the OSCE/ODIHR EOM, formal complaints were filed only
in some 2 per cent of PSs visited. The Office of the Ombudsman sought
to verify the factual basis of the large number of complaints it
received and passed details to the competent authorities, including
on the alleged assault of two members of parliament from the Heritage
Party at PS 13/16 in Yerevan. The Prosecutor General initiated seven
election-related criminal investigations. The conduct of the count
was assessed as ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ in some 16 per cent of PSs visited.
Some 18 per cent of IEOM observers reported ‘significant procedural
errors’, indicating that some major problems remain. These included:
not announcing aloud the number of votes for each candidate (some
22 per cent), inconsistencies in determining the validity of votes
(some 10 per cent) and the usage of mobile phones. Proxies and
domestic observers generally were not hindered in their work and
could observe counting procedures. Although some 15 per cent of
PECs still faced difficulties in completing the results protocols,
this is an improvement from the 2007 elections attributable to the
enhanced training efforts. In several PSs, IEOM observers reported
deliberate falsification of data entered into the protocol, and
in several PSs the protocols were not completed in ink. In some 27
per cent of PSs visited, the protocol of results was not publicly
displayed as required by law.
IEOM observers monitored tabulation in all 41 TECs.
The tabulation process was generally evaluated positively. However,
problems with the organization of the process were noted in some
cases. Confusion seemed to exist among TECs in Yerevan (TEC 1 through
13) on how tabulation of PEC protocols should take place.
This was compounded by the lack of a CEC instruction on the matter. For
example, 35 PEC protocols from TEC 2 arrived at the CEC without TEC
remarks and stamp.
MISSION INFORMATION &ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The OSCE/ODIHR opened its election observation mission in Yerevan on 10
January 2008 with 11 experts, later increased to 16, and 28 long-term
observers deployed in the capital and around the country. On election
day, 333 short-term observers were deployed in an International
Election Observation Mission (IEOM), including a 48- member delegation
from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), a 29-member delegation
from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and
a 6-member delegation from the European Parliament (EP). In total,
there were observers from 42 OSCE participating States. The IEOM
observed the voting in over 1000 and counting in 101 polling stations
throughout the country (out of 1,923 polling stations countrywide),
the transfer of PEC results to TECs and the tabulation of results in
all 41 TECs after polling stations closed.
Ms. Anne-Marie Lizin (Belgium), Vice-President of the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly and Head of the OSCE PA delegation, was
appointed as Special Co-ordinator by the OSCE Chairman-in-Office to
lead the OSCE short-term observers. Mr. John Prescott (United Kingdom)
headed the delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, and Ms. Marie Anne Isler Beguin (France) headed the delegation
of the European Parliament.
Ambassador Geert Ahrens (Germany) is the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission.
The IEOM wishes to thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the
National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia for the invitation to
observe the elections, the Central Election Commission for providing
accreditation documents, and to other state and local authorities for
their assistance and co-operation. The IEOM also wishes to express
appreciation to the OSCE Office in Yerevan for their support throughout
the mission, and resident embassies of OSCE participating States and
other international institutions for their co-operation and support.
For further information, please contact:
Mr. Jens-Hagen Eschenbacher, OSCE/ODIHR Spokesperson, in Warsaw (+
48 22 520 0600) and in Yerevan until 21 February 2008 (+374 94 46
4297), or Ms. Nicola Schmidt, OSCE/ODIHR Election
Adviser, in Warsaw (+ 48 22 520 0600);
Mr. Andreas Baker, Press Officer, International Secretariat of the OSCE
PA, in Copenhagen (+45 60 10 83 80) and in Yerevan ( +374 94 43 70 22);
Ms. Nathalie Bargellini, PACE Secretariat, in Strasbourg (+33 665 40
32 82);
Mr. Thomas Grunert, Election Observation Service, Directorate-General
for External Policies, European Parliament, in Brussels (+32 49 89
83 369).
OSCE/ODIHR EOM Address (until March 2008):
Armenia Marriott Hotel
1 Amiryan Street, Yerevan 0010
tel.: +374 (0)10 566 772 or 580 698
fax: +374 (0)10 564 174
[email protected]
OSCE/ODIHR website:
www.osce.org/odihr