Author: Tavakalian Edgar

RISE IN PRICES AFTER THE ELECTIONS
By Marieta Makarian

AZG Armenian Daily
02/06/2007

On May 31 the Chairman of the Consumers’ Association of Armenia
Armen Poghosian, who was the guest of the club "Pastark", informed
that a rise in prices of consumer goods was recorded after the
elections. "It’s evident that the rise in some consumer prices is just
a consequence of elections". It’s natural that all those organizations
and individuals, who spent money during the campaign, have an aim and
possibility to return their money by raising the prices", explained
Armen Poghosian.

He also mentioned that National Statistical Service and the Central
Bank had announced that instead of inflation Armenia recorded deflation
rate of 0.2 percent. But the Consumers’ Association of Armenia cleared
up: "Water rose in price for several times, transport prices became
100 drams instead of 40, 50 and 70 drams, and here we have an inflation
rate of 200 percent. The prices of vegetables, fruits, dairy products,
flour, eggs and meat also rose. The price of bread rose by 10 drams".

Mr. Poghosian informed, "46 percent of the family budget in our
country is spent on food; in developed countries it is 25 percent,
and if it is more than 25 percent, it is considered the abject level
of poverty, and the people receive poverty benefits as a compensation".

"If the prices are not controlled, they will always have tendency to
rise in our country. Impunity and decontrolled prices are the reason
of high rate of inflation in our country. The currency exchange of
dollar has more uneven development in our country, than in neighbor
countries, and it influences the rate of inflation", said the chairman
of the Consumers’ Assocaition of Armenia. He also mentioned, "There
is no country that hasn’t inflation, but the prices rise parallel with
the incomes in these countries, what we cannot say of our country".

"Today only 60 percent of the imported food has labeling in the
Armenian language; some goods have no production and expiry dates",
he added.

WHYY-TV TO SCREEN "THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE" FILM

ArmRadio.am
31.05.2007 12:45

WHYY-TV, Delaware Broadcasting Center celebrates the diverse community
during June Membership Drive, through special programming including
The Armenian Genocide, which airs at 7:30 June 5.

That night "Genocide’s" Emmy-Award winning producer, Andrew Goldberg,
of Two Cats Productions, will be live in the WHYY studio discussing
his documentary.

The documentary is the story of the first Genocide of the 20th century,
when over one million Armenians died at the hands of the Turks during
World War 1. The program features interviews with experts in the
field including Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Samantha Power, and
New York Times best-selling author, Peter Balakian. The film also
features never-before-seen historical footage and key players from
the events of 1915.

Goldberg filmed the piece in six countries; US, France, Germany,
Belgium, Turkey and Syria. He captured stories and discussions with
Kurdish and Turkish citizens in modern-day Turkey who speak openly
about the stories shared with them by their parents and grandparents.

The film includes testimony by former Turkish Diplomat Gunduz Aktan to
US lawmakers from 2000. In the piece he explains the Turkish position
on the issue by saying `The Turkish people firmly believe that what
happened to the Armenian people was not Genocide.’

Goldberg says, "As Turkey seeks to join the European Union, 90 years
later, this film can give people a much better understanding of why
this issue is such an important and current part of the international
conversation about Turkey’s role in the world today."

Julianna Margulies narrates the film, which also includes historical
narrations by Ed Harris, Natalie Portman, Laura Linney and Orlando
Bloom to name a few.

"CONSITUTIONAL COURT CANNOT SAY HOW MANY VOTES WE HAVE LOST"

A1+
[07:45 pm] 29 May, 2007

What will the "Heritage" party do in the newly appointed
parliament? The party headed by Raffi Hovhannisian got 7 mandates in
the NA.

Stepan Safaryan, director of Armenian Center for National and
International Studies, answered to the questions of "A1+".

– The party is discussing its parliamentary activities at this
moment. In the autumn the party will present legislative and other
initiatives. It also has plans on upcoming elections and is observing
which events are most likely to implement.

– The "Heritage" has provided registered facts on election riggings
to the "Republican Party of Armenia" to be heard at the Constitutional
Court. What facts are they?

-The document provided by us includes surveys of TV news programs
carried out by the Armenian Center for National and International
Studies, which presents obvious proves that no equal opportunities
existed during the elections. The Court is to decide whether such
unjust campaign can offer transparent and free parliamentary
elections. We have also presented reports of our proxies which
are very serious. For example, we have verified facts that one
person voted twice. In another district coming to the election the
voter found out that there was already a signature in front of his
name. Larisa Alaverdyan witnessed a scene of voting with a false
published passport. There are facts that in a number of districts there
was a messy situation and it was impossible to control it. In some
cases heads of the committees refused to put seals under conclusive
records with the intention to change them later. We have also proves
of bribe cases.

– Why the "Heritage" party did not apply at the Constitutional Court
since it possesses such facts?

– When the "Republican Party of Armenia" asked us we had not received
all the records form the regions yet.

Later it became senseless to apply to the CC separately and we
preferred to strengthen the appeal of the "Republican Party of
Armenia".

– What do you expect from the CC?

– We want at least some riggers to carry responsibility. We do not have
great expectations from the results revision. Since the CC does not
have mechanisms and standards to estimate the qualitative influence
of rigging final results. The CC would hardly be able to say how many
votes has this or that party lost. Even if it proves the fraud cases,
the CC will not qualify it was as organized rigging.

– Will the ‘Heritage" party participate in 2008 presidential elections?

– It is too soon to discuss that question.

THE AZERI SIDE AGAIN FAILED TO LEAD THE OSCE MISSION TO ITS FRONT POSITIONS

ArmRadio.am
30.05.2007 14:54

According to an earlir agreemnets with NKR authorities, the OSCE
Mission carried out planned monitoring of the contact line of the
armed forces of Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan to the east of Seisulan
settlement in Martakert region.

Armenpress was told from NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs that
from the positions of the NKR Defense Army the monitoring was
carried out by the coordinator of the OSCE Office Imre Palatinus
(Hungary), Field Assistants of the Personal Representative of the
OSCE Chairman-in-Office Gunter Folk (Germany) and Jasline Nurtazin
(Kazakhstan). From the Azeri side the monitoring group was led by
the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office Andrzej
Kasprzyk.

The monitoring was held in compliance with the prset schedule. However,
teh Azerbaijani side again failed to lead the OSCE Mission to its
front positions, as a result of which the groups had to carry out
montoring at a greater distance. Representatives of the NKR Ministry
of Foreign Affairs drew the attention of the OSCE Mission to this
violation on the part of the Azeri side.

No breaches of the cease-fire regime were registered during the
monitoring.

>From the Karabakhi side the Mission was accompanied by representatives
of the NKR Ministries of Foreign Afffairs and Defense.

IT TAKES HUMANITY TO BUILD A VILLAGE: A FRESNO MAN IS ON A MISSION TO CONSTRUCT HOMES IN A PART OF ARMENIA STILL FEELING THE CRUSH OF A 1998 EARTHQUAKE.
Vanessa Colon

The Fresno Bee – California – KRTBN
Published: May 30, 2007

Kalem Kazarian won’t spend his time lounging around in a comfy hotel
or posing at tourist sites when he arrives in Armenia next month.

Armed with a camera, Kazarian of Fresno will travel to a rural village
where some residents live in shipping containers and metal-roof shacks
since an earthquake in 1998.

He’ll also work on a building project in Yerevan for Habitat for
Humanity Armenia, an affiliate of Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit
Christian housing ministry.

Lusaghbyur, the village he will visit, is northwest of Yerevan,
the capital.

His objective: document the living standards for a new nonprofit
dedicated to building homes one village at a time.

Armenian Hope Organization, a nonprofit group created in 2006, hopes to
rebuild homes destroyed by the devastating earthquake. The organization
with a five-member board formed after three local Armenian-Americans,
including 33-year-old Kazarian, traveled to Armenia for a Habitat
for Humanity building project.

Once the Soviet Union collapsed and Armenia became independent in 1991,
the economy plummeted, hurting many rural villages.

"The landscape is littered with half-built homes. People had no jobs,
so they were not able to finish the houses. … They don’t have the
financial resources to rebuild," said Kazarian, a third-generation
Armenian-American with family ties to Armenia.

Unrelated families and generations of families live in crowded
apartments, and many of them pay rent, but they easily face eviction
because of a poor economy, according to Habitat for Humanity
Armenia. Many homes don’t have heating systems, toilets or running
water.

Brian Yengoyan of Fresno, executive director and chairman of the
Armenian Hope Organization, said at least 103 homes in Lusaghbyur
need to be fixed.

Yengoyan, a developer, and Kazarian, a construction subcontractor,
envision completing 80 to 100 new or partially built homes in
Lusaghbyur. Most of the homes would be built from tufa stone and
straw bale, natural local materials.

For the two men, the project feels like a duty for their generation.

"I feel like if Armenian-Americans won’t do it, who else will? … It’s
to help motivate the younger generation and make them aware of their
heritage.

It’s our responsibility to make a difference," said 27-year-old
Yengoyan.

For the first five years of the project, the organization will use
its donated funds to build homes through Habitat for Humanity Armenia,
Kazarian said.

Habitat for Humanity Armenia homes range from 800 to 1,200 square feet.

Building a new Habitat home in Armenia costs about $10,000, Kazarian
said.

So far, the Armenian Hope Organization has raised $8,000, Kazarian
said. The Pilgrim Armenian Congregational Church in east-central
Fresno also plans to donate funds to the Armenian Hope Organization.

The Rev. Ara Guekguezian of Pilgrim Armenian Congregational Church
said rebuilding homes will raise the self-esteem of the village.

"When you grow up in a village where everyone is poor, you can be
hopeless.

We are giving them a helpful gift," Guekguezian said.

Kazarian plans to move to Lusaghbyur in February. He would like to
develop relationships with the residents and learn the language before
starting on a 10-year building project. His wife and children —
ages 2, 3 and 5 — will join him.

"We all understand it will be difficult, but we are excited about it
as well," Kazarian said. "The kids are actually excited."

His wife, Jonelle, plans to look at it as an extended camping vacation
for three years.

"We’ve been joking about washing clothes in the river. … [But]
I’m willing and open for the challenge," she said.

The three main goals of the project involve providing housing,
education and employment, Yengoyan said. Habitat for Humanity requires
families to pay a mortgage with no interest for homes built through
the program, he said. It comes out to about $20 a month, Kazarian said.

Yengoyan envisions the organization taking the role of liaison with
business investors to help create jobs.

"We want to make sure this community can sustain itself," Yengoyan
said.

Kazarian said part of the challenge will involve educating residents
about repaying home loans, a new concept for many of them. Most are
used to having a home passed down from one generation to another,
he said. But he said the organization, whose members have seen the
living conditions, is committed to transforming the village.

"We are going there to make sure it happens," Kazarian said.

ARMENIAN POLICE ARREST PARTICIPANT IN BRAWL IN SECOND CITY

Arminfo
29 May 07

Yerevan, 29 May: One of the participants in the late brawl in Gyumri
has been arrested. The press secretary of Armenia’s Prosecutor-General,
Sona Truzyan, has told Arminfo that the detained person is Norayr
Soloyan, who had been wounded in the leg before the brawl in central
Gyumri.

Soloyan was transferred from a Gyumri hospital to a prison hospital in
Yerevan. He has been charged under Article 258.4 of the Criminal Code
of the Republic of Armenia (disorderly conduct). The press secretary
said that measures were taken to locate the people who were wanted
and find out the identities of other participants in the scuffle.

Between 1800 and 1830 [1300 and 1330 gmt] on 20 May in Metelitsa
bar-restaurant, Gyumri citizen Norayr Soloyan, being under the
influence of alcohol and together with an unidentified person,
began a fight with the owner of the restaurant Rustam Sargsyan
(son of the Prosperous Armenia Party representative from the 34th
constituency). Disrespecting the public order and Sargsyan personally,
Soloyan spilled a glass of beer in his [Sargsyan’s] face. This became
the cause of the argument. The argument continued outside. Sargsyan
shot twice at the legs of Soloyan from an illegal Makarov gun. Being
wounded in his right thigh, Soloyan left the scene of the incident.

On the same day around 1930 [1430 gmt] on a lively crossroad of Teryan
and Ghukasyan streets, a shooting took place between Sargsyan (who was
in his Toyota Land Cruiser car with state number plates 77 ul 222,
together with a passenger Telman Karapetyan), and Spartak Ghukasyan
(son of the Gyumri mayor, in car Hummer H-2 with state number
plates 44 ss 440), with an unidentified passenger. Murder attempt
was unsuccessful for a reason not depending on the participants in
the scuffle. The participants left the scene in a hurry.

A woman (Hamaspyur Mnatsakanyan) was wounded as a result of the
shooting.

She was not related neither to the participants in the shooting nor
to the argument. Walls of houses nearby are damaged, glasses are shot
out, and cars parked nearby are damaged.

[Passage omitted: detailed description of objects found as result of
criminal investigation]

On the basis of proofs received, the police made a decision to
charge Sargsyan, Karapetyan and Ghukasyan under points 1, 6 and 7 of
Article 34-104 (attempted murder), point 1 of Article 235 (illegal
possession of arms) and point 4 of Article 258 (disorderly conduct),
of the Armenian Criminal Code. Arrest was selected as a measure of
constraint. A search has been declared.

RESOLUTION ON PREVENTING AZERBIJANI MILITARY AGGRESSION

A1+
[03:40 pm] 29 May, 2007

Recently Ilham Aliev made warlike statements in Baku saying that
they had got some military techniques, thus, frustrating the military
balance in the region.

The Armenian part keeps silence, even when Robert Simmon, the Special
Representative of NATO Secretary General in the South Caucasus,
announced that Azerbaijan violated the OSCE agreement on "Convention
of Ordinary Offence Armaments Reduction in Europe".

In an interview to "A1+" 4 months ago the former RA Minister of Defense
Vagharshak Harutyunyan was also alarmed by the fact that Azerbaijan
was breaching the mentioned OSCE agreement, while the Armenian part
was inactive on the problem concerned. The same viewpoint was confirmed
by Mikael Harutyunyan, the present RA Defense Minister.

The RA NA Chairman Tigran Torosyan commented on this issue: "The
position of Armenia is what it is now. The position is expressed
not only by making announcements but by their absence". Mr Torosyan
doubts that by raising the issue, the Armenian part will get benefit
from it. "Unfortunately, such violations cannot be prevented only by
statements". Mr Torosyan noted that if the NATO Official Representative
pointed out this violation, it proved that everyone was aware of it.

Tigran Torosyan mentioned that Armenia had insisted that Azerbaijan
remained true to the agreement and added: "There is no need to remind
it that another time since the situation will not alter".

General Lieutenant Vagharshak Harutyunyan who had participated in
the preparation of the agreement, and was aware of the agreement’s
provisions and the opportunities of the agreement, said: "Taking into
account Aliev’s statements that they had acquired armaments from the
Ukraine, we are obliged to demand from him to fulfill the provisions of
the agreement, since his announcements contradict the agreement". Mr
Harutyunyan quoted the agreement: "To reach power balance, which will
not allow sudden attacks or sudden commence of military actions".

Vagharshak Harutyunyan noted that the "Convention of Ordinary Offence
Armaments Reduction in Europe" agreement signed within the frameworks
of the OSCE provides the security of Armenia.

"The power balance is the basis of security, and if we manage to
prevent Azerbaijan from breaching the agreement, we will ensure
Armenia’s security, and will prevent Azerbaijani’s possible attack on
Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia",- said Vagharshak Harutyunyan to "A1+".

"The agreement allows holding an inspection and the country where
the inspection is to be held guarantees the responsibility of
security. According to the first provision of the 16-th Article of
the agreement, a consultative group is to be set up to check the
agreement implementations", said Mr Harutyunyan.

"Coming out of this provision Armenia should raise the issue of
consultative group in the OSCE, CoE, UNO, CIC and NATO. All instances
should be informed about Azerbaijani activities, it should be done
during the meetings of the concerned parties. The position of the
participating states may also influence on Azerbaijan to fulfill the
agreement. No European country will encourage Azerbaijan in its actions
since it may be dangerous for everyone", stated Vagharshak Harutyunyan.

To our question, why NATO does not take measures, Mr Harutyunyn
mentioned: "NATO is not a member of the agreement and its not competent
of doing so. The RA Minister of Foreign Affairs should officially
raise this issue at all instances".

In Mr Harutyunyan’s point of view, if Armenia raises the question
consistently, the way Azerbaijan raises the issues of fires, refugees
and the "occupied" territories at all possible instances that will be
viewed as a serious step. The Azerbaijani action to disturb armament
balance contradicts the statements of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmen.

This means that Azerbaijan does not fulfill the requirements of the
OSCE Minsk Group. "We demand Azerbaijan to fulfill the international
agreement, and if it does not do so then how can they trust this
country?

The former Minister of Defense finds that Armenia should not stay
inactive having such lever, while Azerbaijan does not a lever and
carries out anti-Armenian propagates. The topic touched by Vagharshak
Harutyunyan is becoming actual today. "This issue is a serious problem
of debate for the OSCE, EU and NATO and we should be ready to it".

EURKENIAN INTERESTS TO GENOA

Avionews, Italy
May 29 2007

Genoa, Italy – His holding wants to manage the airport (WAPA) –
The Eduardo Eurkenian’s Corporation America could be interested to
manage the airport of Genoa.

The holding operates air stations in Argentina, Ecuador and Armenia
and has the majority of the stock capital of the airport society
Aeropuertos Argentina 2000, constituent company owned by Sea Group
that manages the airports of Malpensa and Linate.

Argentine enterpriser, investigated for Volare financial crack, could
form an alliance with Miro Radici Finance and invest in Italy again,
buying the 15% of airport of Genoa administrated today by AdR –
Aeroporti di Roma.

During year 2006 Genoa’s air traffic has been of 1 million and 100
thousand of passengers. (Avionews)

(024) 070529164945-1074621 (World Aeronautical Press Agency –
2007-05-29 04:49 pm)

Co-chairs confirmed: return of territories is the first step

Davit Babayan,
Political Scientist
27-05-2007 13:23:31 – KarabakhOpen

On May 25 the French and Russian co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group
acknowledged in a news conference in Baku that Nagorno-Karabakh is
part of Azerbaijan and said to consider the withdrawal of force from
the so-called `occupied’ territories. They think Azerbaijan must
control all the territories. The French co-chair even stated that the
return of territories is the first step. What comment does this
statement want? First of all, there is no need to make emotional
statements and accuse the co-chairs of a pro-Azerbaijani and
anti-Armenian policy. Azerbaijan will soon declare this stance as a
major diplomatic victory. However, the diplomacy of settlement of
relations between the great powers and major actors in the world is
very subtle and the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is also on this
plane. Therefore, what arouses emotional outbursts is in reality the
insignificant aspects of this subtle game.

The South Caucasus is one of the most important strategic regions on
the Earth, where the interests of great powers clash. Today the
competition between the key actors has become tougher. Interestingly,
however, the actors are interested in relieving passions. Therefore,
in those regions and problems, where stability has been sustained, the
great powers would hardly take steps which would harm stability and
kindle struggle among them. In this context, the unilateral statement
of the co-chairs is but freezing of the talks on Nagorno-Karabakh
until a more convenient time. It is clear that in Karabakh and Armenia
nobody will agree to return to Azerbaijan the strategic territories
and Nagorno-Karabakh with the borders of 1988. In this context, this
scenario will not be acceptable for the Armenian parties. On the other
hand, it is a paradox but with their statement the co-chairs actually
neutralized Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan, which is reluctant to acknowledge
the reality and insists on restoring the setting of 1923 rather than
1988 when it annexed Karabakh, got a formal `approval’ of its
stance. But this stance torpedoed the process itself.

Hence, when the time is more convenient, the mediators can state that
the stance of Azerbaijan must be reconsidered, otherwise it will be
impossible to reach anywhere. In any case, we must continue to
reinforce our country, its economic, military and democratic
potential, for much depends on it.

OSCE/ODIHR POST-ELECTION INTERIM REPORT No. 1

A1+
[08:08 pm] 25 May, 2007

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following the 12 May elections to the National Assembly and the
Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions by the International
Election Observation Mission (IEOM) on 13 May, the OSCE/ODIHR Election
Observation Mission (EOM) continued to observe the vote tabulation,
the announcement of results and the handling of complaints and appeals.

During these last stages of the election process, the OSCE/ODIHR EOM
observed certain inconsistencies with established regulations and
departures from best electoral practice which do not contribute to
strengthening public confidence in the election process.

The vote count and tabulation were protracted but completed generally
within legal deadlines. However, delay by the Central Election
Commission (CEC) in posting tabulated results from the Yerevan
constituencies on its website compromised transparency measures put
in place for these elections.

Several Territorial Election Commissions (TECs) were observed
ordering corrections to Precinct Election Commission (PEC) protocols,
including adjustments to "initial data" (for example, number of
voters according to the voter lists, number of ballots received),
contrary to the Election Code.

The OSCE/ODIHR EOM observed discrepancies, some of them significant,
between certified polling station protocol copies and preliminary
disaggregated results tabulated by TECs and submitted electronically
mainly via a networked computer system. While such mistakes may not
have been deliberate, they included numbers swapped between lines,
incorrect calculations and discrepancies in initial data.

Three of the nine CEC members refused to sign the protocol of the
nationwide preliminary proportional contest results, citing reports of
violations that called into question the accuracy of the results. They
refused also to sign the final results protocol.

Recounts of results were initially requested in twelve constituencies,
and took place to completion in five.

These were conducted in accordance with the law and revealed no major
results discrepancies with the preliminary results.

At least 20 complaints and appeals relating to election day were
received and adjudicated by the CEC and TECs.

The president and the prime minister have stated that criminal
responsibility for electoral violations is to be pursued. Some criminal
cases have been initiated related to falsification of results, bribery
and fraud involving the voter list. The OSCE/ODIHR welcomes these
steps and emphasizes the importance of the thorough and impartial
investigation of all alleged irregularities.

II. INTRODUCTION

For the 12 May election day observation, the OSCE/ODIHR EOM
joined efforts with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the European
Parliament (EP) to form the International Election Observation Mission
(IEOM). On the day after the elections to the National Assembly, the
IEOM issued a joint Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions.

The statement reflected developments in the pre-election period,
election day and the vote counting overnight. As noted in the
Statement, a final assessment of the election also depends on the
conduct of the remaining stages of the election process, including
the vote tabulation, announcement of final results and the handling of
post-election complaints and appeals. The OSCE/ODIHR EOM will continue
to follow developments; this interim report covers developments for
the period from 13 to 22 May. The OSCE/ODIHR will issue a comprehensive
final report including recommendations approximately two months after
completion of the election process.

III. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

A. VOTE TABULATION AT TECS

The IEOM observed the vote counting and completion of results
protocols at 108 PECs, and tabulation of results at 39 out of the 41
TECs. Vote counting observed at PEC level was protracted, although in
only four observed instances did it extend beyond the legal deadline
for completion (10 hours after the close of voting). In PEC 17/38
the proportional counting and results protocol was completed at
around 05:30 hours, and consequently the PEC did not conduct a proper
majoritarian results count before filling out the majoritarian protocol
in time for the 06:00 hours deadline.

In 35 per cent of the polling stations where counting was observed,
the PEC members had difficulties completing the results protocols,
and in 11 cases the PEC was observed taking the prohibited action
of changing protocol "initial data" (number of voters according to
the voter lists, number of ballots and envelopes received, number of
cancelled and unused ballot papers, number of ballot paper coupons).

The implications of the observed difficulties with completion of
results protocols at PECs became more evident at the point of transfer
of results for tabulation at the TECs: many results protocols had
been filled out incompletely or incorrectly by the PECs.

Consequently, the completion or correction of protocols at TECs
was widely observed – 17 percent of TECs ordered corrections – and
completely new PEC protocols were observed being compiled at TECs 13,
16 and 37. This appeared to contribute to disorganisation at TECs,
with IEOM observers reporting procedural errors in 31 per cent of
TECs. These included lapses in a number of procedures relating to
the security of electoral materials and transparency.4 Overall, IEOM
observers assessed the conduct of the tabulation as bad or very bad
in 35 per cent of TECs.

Actions prohibited in the Election Code were also observed: 14
TECs were observed changing or ordering changes to "initial data"
on PEC protocols; and in seven TECs bags containing ballot papers
were delivered from PECs unsealed, or had clearly been sealed and
reopened.5 At TEC 19 IEOM observers saw unsealed bags of ballot papers
being taken downstairs to a campaign office of the Republican Party
and then brought back up to the TEC premises sealed. TECs 4, 36 and
40 were observed to have continued tabulation of results beyond the
deadline of 14:00 hours on 13 May.

The CEC had made considerable efforts to establish a transparent
reporting system of results, with results disaggregated by PEC
displayed on its website. Results were slow to appear on the website
on 12-13 May. Most results from the 13 Yerevan TECs were not posted
until after midday on 13 May, which cannot be explained by the slow
rate of the counting and tabulation. Although results appeared
within the deadline for the CEC to announce preliminary results
(i.e. by 20:00 hours on 13 May), a significant lapse in the promised
transparency of recording election results appears to have occurred,
as the vote counting and completion of results protocols in Yerevan
was reported by IEOM observers to have been completed by almost all
Yerevan PECs before 06:00 hours on 13 May.

The networked computer system linking the CEC to the TECs was not used
for the delivery of results in Yerevan. By a decision of the CEC from
February,6 the tabulated results data from the Yerevan TECs were to
be delivered to the CEC premises and entered into the computer there,
by CEC staff. The formal decision on this was apparently not widely
understood, and appeared to be contradicted by information given closer
to the election day, including in the CEC chairman’s presentation of
the system to the mass media on 12 April (see OSCE/ODIHR EOM Interim
Report No.2).

B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESULTS

The CEC announced preliminary results for the proportional contest
at 16:10 hours on 13 May.

However, three of the nine CEC members – representing the former
Justice Alliance, Orinats Yerkir and the National Unity Party –
refused to sign the results protocol, on the grounds that the extent
of electoral violations reported to them called into question the
accuracy of the announced election outcome.

Since 13 May the OSCE/ODIHR EOM has been able to compare 94
certified PEC "protocol extracts" obtained by IEOM observers (from
35 constituencies) with the disaggregated preliminary results of the
proportional contest posted on the CEC website. Discrepancies in 187
individual items of data entry were found. While such mistakes may not
have been deliberate, they included numbers swapped between lines and
incorrect calculations. However, significant discrepancies were also
found in the socalled initial data. According to the Election Code,
this data should not have been altered after initially being recorded.

On 16 May OSCE/ODIHR EOM observers at the CEC premises in Yerevan
witnessed CEC staff, in the presence of TEC representatives,
re-entering PEC protocol data for the proportional contest into the
computerized tabulation system. It was explained to the OSCE/ODIHR
EOM that original protocols brought to Yerevan by the TECs were being
used for the data re-entry, and that final election results would be
established on this basis.

On 19 May the CEC held its session on establishing and announcing
final results of the proportional election and approving the results
of the majoritarian contest.

The final results as announced included minor changes in tabulated
figures as compared to the preliminary results; however these did
not appear to affect the election outcome as calculated in the
preliminary results. The same three CEC members who had refused
to sign the preliminary results protocol refused to sign the final
results protocol.

While the TEC protocols disaggregated by PEC for the proportional
contest are required by law to be publicly posted, the posting
of the majoritarian contest results as disaggregated by PEC is not
stipulated in the Election Code. Consequently, proxies, observers and
other interested parties had no possibility to check the correctness
of certified PEC protocol copies against a TEC protocol for the
majoritarian contest.

Moreover, the period for which result protocols (proportional and
majoritarian) should be on display at PEC and TEC premises is not
stipulated. In many places the OSCE/ODIHR EOM observed that protocols
were taken down shortly after election day. On 18 May, the OSCE/ODIHR
EOM noted that all TEC protocol data on majoritarian contest results
had been removed from the CEC website.

The extent of problems and irregularities arising during the
counting, tabulation and publication of results, and deficiencies in
transparency, are not conducive to strengthening public confidence
in the administration of crucial election procedures.

The authorities have begun to take corrective steps, including
launching a criminal investigation of all nine members of PEC 15/16
for falsification of election results, and initiating criminal cases
also for bribery and for fraud involving the voter list.

President Robert Kocharyan and Prime Minister Serge Sargsyan have
stated that criminal responsibility for electoral violations is being
pursued (see also below).

C. RECOUNTS

The Election Code provides that candidates, proxies or PEC members have
the right to appeal the results of the voting in a particular precinct
by submitting a recount request to the respective TEC. Although
in the event of a high number of such requests the TEC’s capacity
to complete its work within proscribed deadlines can be challenged,
the Election Code allows flexibility for TECs to extend their working
hours to accommodate such an eventuality,8 and there are no provisions
in the law stipulating any reasons why a TEC may refuse to conduct a
recount if correctly requested. In cases where TECs rejected requests
for recounts, the decision to do so was made on procedural grounds
and in accordance with the law.

The OSCE/ODIHR EOM was made aware of more than 30 requests for
recounts affecting more than 200 polling stations in 12 constituencies;
mainly these related to majoritarian contests. A number of these were
subsequently withdrawn by the complainant. In two cases known to the
OSCE/ODIHR EOM (in TECs 15 and 25) the complainants withdrew their
requests for a recount after it had commenced, because they allegedly
did not trust the TEC recount process.

The recount at TEC 15 was affected by a demonstration outside the
premises on 16-17 May and delays in reaching a quorum. In the five
places where recounts took place to completion, they were reported
to have been carried out in a calm atmosphere and in accordance with
procedures. TEC 33 did not meet the deadline for summarization of
the recounts, but reportedly was given a deadline extension by the CEC.

Recounts observed by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM did not produce significantly
different results from those recorded in the original protocols.

D. LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE RESULTS

Election results can only be challenged in the Constitutional
Court. Court officials informed the OSCE/ODIHR EOM, that, guided by the
Law on the Constitutional Court, it will receive complaints for both
the proportional and majoritarian contest on the seventh day after
the announcement of final results, i.e. 26 May for the proportional
contest, and generally on 24 May for the majoritarian contests10
(the Election Code says within seven days, but the Constitutional
Court officials said that the different wording in the Law on the
Constitutional Court takes precedence). The Constitutional Court has
fifteen days to render a final decision on the proportional results
after their announcement,11 while one month is granted for deciding on
majoritarian disputes. Moreover, the Constitutional Court may decide
to prolong the deadline for a decision in the majoritarian contest for
up to 50 days. At this writing one complaint has been received by the
Constitutional Court, from majoritarian candidate Heghine Bisharyan
(Orinats Yerkir), disputing the majoritarian election results in
TEC 11.

IV. OTHER POST-ELECTION COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS

The OSCE/ODIHR EOM was informed of seven complaints (on behalf of
various political parties and the CEC member from Orinats Yerkir)
filed with the CEC, and around twice that number filed with TECs
alleging irregularities on election day, mainly about procedural
violations, vote buying, ballot stuffing, military voting, the
presence of unauthorized persons and election day campaigning. The
CEC demonstrated genuine efforts to handle disputes by responding to
all of the complaints in a timely manner. Most of the complaints it
received were rejected on jurisdictional grounds or as being without
substance (in one case of the latter, concerning alleged vote buying
and ballot stuffing, the CEC consulted with the relevant TEC before
making its determination).

TECs have been handling complaints in a transparent manner, but some
issues raised concern. In particular, on election day, TEC 17 refused
to review four complaints submitted by a candidate. The complaints
were erroneously addressed to individual PECs and not the TEC, and the
TEC refused the complaints while it could instead have encouraged the
applicant to correct the formal error.12 The OSCE/ODIHR EOM was also
informed of ten applications received by the Office of the Prosecutor
General concerning election day irregularities possibly constituting
criminal offences. As noted above, some criminal cases have already
been initiated.

The OSCE/ODIHR EOM will continue to follow the complaints and appeals
process. It appreciates the continued co-operation with the authorities
of the Republic of Armenia.