Appendix 2 –
Observation of the referendum on constitutional reforms in Armenia
(6 December 2015) – Memorandum by Mr Andreas Gross (Switzerland,
SOC), Chairperson of the ad hoc committee
AS/Bur (2016) 04
22 January 2016
Bureau of the Assembly
1. Introduction
1. The Bureau of the Assembly,
at its meeting of 26 November 2015, decided to observe the referendum on
constitutional reforms in Armenia, constituted an ad hoc committee
consisting of one member per political group and the co-rapporteur
of the Monitoring Committee on Armenia, appointed Mr Andreas Gross (Switzerland,
SOC) as its Chairperson, and approved the composition of the ad
hoc committee (Appendix 1).
2. The ad hoc committee was present in Armenia from 4 to 7 December
2015 to observe the referendum which led to a new constitution.
It had meetings with leaders and representatives of parliamentary
groups and parties, the Chairperson of the Central Election Committee
(CEC), representatives of civil society and the media as well as
the experts from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human
Rights from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE/ODIHR). The programme is set out in Appendix 2.
3. The ad hoc committee operated outside the usual framework
of an International Election Observation Mission, as, out of its
usual partners (OSCE/ODIHR, OSCEParliamentary Assembly, European
Parliament), only the OSCE/ODIHR was present in the country with
a reduced Referendum Expert Team.
4. Following the referendum day, the ad hoc committee made a
statement, which appears in Appendix 3.
2. The
drawing-up of the new constitution, political context, legal framework
and inclusiveness of the process
1. The referendum concerned the
quasi total revision of the Constitution and the adoption of a series
of draft amendments to the Constitution, intended to change the
political system from a presidential to a parliamentary system and
to substantially change the electoral system. In the new Constitution,
the powers of the President are drastically reduced and are almost
only ceremonial. The role of the opposition will be strengthened
with the new Constitution.
2. The proposals were considered contentious by some in the country
and the debate on the constitutional reform process dominated the
political landscape in Armenia over the last few months.
3. In June 2013, the President of Armenia established a Specialised
Commission for Constitutional Reforms (“Constitutional Commission”)
and its Coordinator requested the assistance of the Venice Commission
in the process of revising the Constitution.
4. Many efforts were made to include all interested citizens,
groups and parties in the debate over the constitutional reforms.
In different regions, public debates, round table discussions and
talk shows were held throughout the whole process of the making
of the new Constitution. The President of the Republic invited all political
parties, even those not present in the parliament, for consultations
over the proposed amendments.
5. The Venice Commission prepared two opinions on the draft amendments
to the Constitution. It noted that the work carried out by the Constitutional
Commission was of a high quality. It also stressed that the exchanges
between the Constitutional Commission and the Venice Commission
had enabled the production of a text, which was in line with international
standards.
6. The Venice Commission stressed furthermore the importance
of an open and continuous dialogue with all political forces and
with civil society in Armenia in order for the constitutional amendments
to be adopted by the parliament and subsequently by referendum.
7. The draft amendments were sent to the National Assembly on
21 August 2015. On 5 October, the National Assembly voted 104 to
10 and with three abstentions to put the proposals to a vote. The
Republican Party of Armenia, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
and the Prosperous Armenia party voted in favour, whilst the Armenian
National Congress and the Heritage party voted against. The three
abstainers were members of the Rule of Law party, with two of the
party's MPs voting against the proposals.
8. The campaign seemed to be somewhat low-key, although many
debates were aired on the three major TV-channels. Marathon debates
were aired during many hours and the proponents of the reform considered that
they had reached 40 percent of the viewers.
9. Nevertheless, the ad hoc committee had the impression that
shortly before referendum day, political forces were still split
concerning the reply to be given to the referendum and that citizens
showed little interest in the exercise and seemed not to be well
informed about the nature of the changes and their implications.
3. Referendum
administration
1. The Central Electoral Commission
set up 1 997 polling precincts for the referendum. Citizens of Armenia residing
abroad were not able to cast their vote, with the exception of those
serving diplomatically and their families, who had the possibility
to vote via the internet. The Chairperson of the CEC informed the
ad hoc committee that this concerned only 265 persons, mainly diplomats.
2. The electoral commissions included representatives of all
parties present in the National Assembly. As for the Chairs and
Secretaries of the 1997 electoral commissions, 888 positions were
allocated to the Republican Party, all the others to opposition
parties.
4. Referendum
campaign and media environment
1. After approval of the draft
amendments to the Constitution by the President of Armenia on 21
August 2015, they were submitted to the National Assembly and approved
on 5 October.
2. The campaign for the referendum was considered by some as
being low-key, with little public debate. According to some interlocutors
of the ad hoc committee, it was also marred by misuse of administrative resources
to campaign in favour of constitutional changes. The ad hoc committee
was also told of attempts to influence the electoral administration
at territorial and local level, by means of intimidation and/or
corruption, a factor reported to the Prosecutor’s office, which
subsequently led to the arrest of one person. The delegation also
heard allegations of organised, large-scale, vote buying.
3. The inaccuracy of the voter list remained the most crucial
issue, in particular in correlation to the confidentiality of voter
participation, which some considered left room for manipulation
and contributed to a lack of confidence in electoral processes in
Armenia.
4. These allegations have been made regularly during all the
recent elections in Armenia. Partly, this comes from the system
of voter registration, which implies that voters should inform on
voluntary basis the relevant authorities of changes of their residence,
including permanent residence abroad. In the absence of such notification
the authorities stress, that they have no right to remove the voters
from the lists, they have to respect the right to vote.
5. As for the names of deceased persons, we were informed that
once the death certificate is issued by the relevant authorities,
the name of the deceased person is now automatically erased from
the voters list. However, this is not the case if a person dies
abroad. In this case, the authorised person should inform the relevant
authorities of the fact so that the name of the deceased person
can be removed from the voters list.
5. Referendum
day
1. The referendum day was calm.
The ad hoc committee split into three teams who observed the voting
in Yerevan and its outskirts, as well as in the Ararat and Armavir
regions.
2. One team noticed the presence of groups of persons in the
close proximity to some polling stations, one of them being visibly
disturbed by the presence of the observer team and disappearing
after a short conversation with a member of the polling station
commission, only to re-appear when realising that the team was leaving.
It also witnessed evidence of vote-buying in the polling stations
where it observed the voting (many “yes” ballots had one or more
than one corners folded, a well-known technique allowing voters
to “prove” to a person present during the vote counting and responsible
for buying a certain number of votes for the respective polling
station that the voter had indeed fulfilled the promise made when
receiving the money). The Chairperson of the polling station commission
(belonging to an opposition party), who was unfolding each ballot paper,
did not seem to notice this unusual folding pattern.
3. The second team reported that a person who had only a biometric
passport and not also a national ID card was not allowed to vote.
In a polling station, a poster of the Republican Party asking voters
to vote “yes” was displayed at the door next to the entry for the
polling station. In the polling station where this team observed the
counting, voting was overwhelmingly in favour of “no”.
4. The third team was informed by local NGO observers that carousel
voting had earlier taken place in the polling station they were
observing. This team were present when a woman came to vote only
to discover that somebody else had already voted on her behalf,
then, when she announced she would go to the police to file a report,
she was allowed to vote anyway. During the counting, the polling
station commission decided to take a 30 minute break to have dinner
(during the counting process - supposed to take place without any
kind of interruption). We recommend that further training be carried
out and better awareness of the rules be ensured for future elections
so as to eradicate such practices.
5. The lack of mobile voting and the location of some polling
stations on upper stories of buildings with no lift effectively
excluded some disabled citizens from the process. The matter of
the exclusion of many citizens living abroad from exercising their
vote should be addressed by the political authorities so as to avoid
anyone being deprived of the right to express their views.
6. According to the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media,
there were cases of obstruction and threats against journalists
covering the referendum. A number of journalists were reported to
be hindered in carrying out their duties on the day of the referendum.
6. Official
complaints and how they were treated
1. After referendum day, the Ombudsman
of Armenia wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General, the Head of
the Police, the Head of the Investigation Committee and the Head
of the Special Investigation Service regarding possible violations
during the referendum. The letter stated that 67 emergency calls
regarding possible violations during the referendum had been received
by the Ombudsman and that there was information on further, similar,
violations the credibility of which had not yet been verified. The
Ombudsman presented a list of suspicious incidents (many with links
to youtube videos showing irregularities) and asked that the cases
be investigated and relevant measures be taken.
2. On 11 December, the Prosecutor General of Armenia announced
a total of 461 claims of possible violations during the referendum.
He announced that 143 reports were prepared on the basis of these
claims, 12 of which had been transmitted to the police for examination,
with criminal cases having been initiated on the basis of 214 claims.
Criminal cases will not be instigated for 189 claims. The Prosecutor
General also announced that 82 claims of violations were received
from citizens, 55 from human rights activist organisations, 30 from
observers and another 300 from mass media. He gave assurances that
law enforcement bodies would take all necessary steps to investigate
these crimes.
3. Recounts were carried out in 53 precincts, and ended on 11
December. On 14 December, the Central Electoral Commission made
public the final results of the constitutional referendum. According
to the CEC, the turnout was of 50.74% of the 2 566 998 voters (thus
meeting the quorum of 25% of registered voters needed to approve
the changes). 63.37% voted in favour of the constitutional amendments
and 32.36% said 'no' to the new Constitution. The number of invalid
ballots was 53 435. The number of stamped ballots at the district electoral
commissions was 1 337 670.
7. Conclusions
and recommendations
1. The relatively low turn-out,
around 50% of the population, perhaps reflects either a general
disinterest in constitutional matters, or a general feeling that
political interests were taking precedence over the needs of the Armenian
public. The referendum may have also been perceived by some as a
vote of confidence in the government/President rather than on proposals
for change. Some argued that the two-and-a-half-year reform process
was not inclusive enough, with only a few weeks being given to discuss
the text and that limited public debates made it difficult for an
agreement to be reached. Thus, the core of the constitutional change
- the shift from a presidential to a parliamentary system - was
seen by many as simply a means for the current president to remain
in power after the end of his second (and what would have been final)
term - even though he repeatedly stated that he had no intention
of doing so.
2. Concerning the voting process, the ad hoc committee regrets
that the authorities were not more concerned by the integrity of
the process leading to a new Constitution and that it must mention
several problems, many of them already mentioned in previous PACE,
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR recommendations:
- the inaccuracy of the voting
lists containing the names of many people residing permanently abroad
or even deceased, leading to claims that these identities were usurped
by people who then voted several times;
- allegations of large-scale organised vote buying and carousel
voting as well as pressure on voters;
- the media playing field was once again not a level one
and the political parties were not able to fulfil their duties of
informing and motivating the public;
- the misuse of administrative resources by executive bodies;
- allegations of pressure on, and attempts to corrupt, election
officials;
- shortcomings in the training of precinct election officials,
particularly during counting;
- the lack of mobile voting effectively excluded disabled
citizens from the process.
3. The ad hoc committee urges the authorities to address these
issues in order to build trust in the voting process and in politics
in general to ensure a genuinely democratic future for Armenia.
Appendix
1: Ad hoc Committee for the observation of the referendum on constitutional
reforms in Armenia
(6 December 2015)
List of members
Chairperson: Andreas GROSS (Switzerland, SOC)
Socialist Group (SOC)
- Andreas GROSS, Switzerland
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
Rapporteur AS/MON (ex officio)
- Mr Alan MEALE, United Kingdom
Secretariat
- Bogdan TORCĂTORIU, Administrative
Officer, Election observation and Interparliamentary co-operation
Division
- Anne GODFREY, Assistant, Election observation and Interparliamentary
co-operation Division / Assistante
Appendix 2: Programme
Friday,
4 December 2015
13:30-14:30 Council of Europe Office
Delegation meeting with the participation of Ms Natalia Voutova,
Head of the Council of Europe Office in Yerevan
14:30-15:45 Meeting with representatives of NGOs (round
table):
- Armenian Helsinki Committee:
Mr Avetik Ishkhanyan (Chair)
- Helsinki Citizens' Assembly: Mr Arthur Sakunts (Chair)
- Transparency International: Ms Sona Aivazyan (Vice-Director)
- Open Society Institute: Ms Larisa Minasyan (Executive
Director)
15:45-17:00 Meeting with media representatives (round table):
- Yerevan Press Club: Mr Boris
Navasardyan, Chair, Mr Mikayel Zolyan, Project Co-ordinator
- RFE / RL (Radio Liberty): Ms Hegine Buniatyan
- A1 Plus: Ms Karine Asatryan, Editor-in-Chief
- Aravot Daily: Ms Nelli Grigoryan
17:00-18:00 Meeting with experts from the OSCE/ODIHR:
- Mr Douglas Bruce Wake (Leader
of the Referendum Expert Team)
- Mr Alexey Gromov (Election Adviser)
- Mr Egor Tilpunov (Media Expert)
Saturday,
5 December 2015
10:00-12:00 (at the Parliament) Meetings
with:
10:00-11:00 leaders and representatives of parliamentary
groups and/or parties in favour of “YES”: Ms Hermine Naghdalyan
and Mr Koryun Nahapetyan, Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), Mr Armen
Rustamyan, Armenian Revolutionary Federation - Dashnaktsutyun (ARF-D),
Ms Naira Zohrabyan, Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP)
11:00-12:00 leaders and representatives of parliamentary
groups and/or parties in favour of “NO”: Heritage, Armenian National
Congress (ANC) (including People's Party of Armenia), “Rule of Law”:
Mr Levon Zourabian (ANC)
15:30-16:30 (at the CEC) Meeting
with Mr Tigran Mukuchyan, Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission
Sunday,
6 December 2015
Observation of the referendum
Monday,
7 December 2015
9:00 Meeting of the delegation: discussion of a draft press
release
Appendix
3: Statement of the ad hoc committee
Observation of the referendum
on the new constitution in Armenia
07/12/2015
A cross-party delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe (PACE) was present in Armenia from 4 to 7
December 2015 to observe the referendum on constitutional reforms
which took place on 6 December and led to a new constitution.
After a somewhat low-key campaign with little public debate
and a calm referendum day, according to preliminary results, around
64% of those who voted did so in favour of the changes, thus meeting
the quorum of 25% of the registered voters needed to approve the
changes.
The relatively low turn-out, around 50% of the population,
reflects the fact that the referendum was driven by political interests
instead of the needs of the Armenian public and was perceived by
many citizens as a vote of confidence in the government rather than
on the many proposals for change. The two-and-a-half-year reform process
was not inclusive enough, the parliament having only a few weeks
to discuss the text and public debate being limited to two months,
making it difficult for an agreement to be reached. Thus, the core
of the constitutional change - the shift from a presidential to
a parliamentary system - was understood by too many citizens as
being a means for the current president to remain in power after
the end of his second (and what would have been final) term.
Concerning the voting process, the delegation regrets that
the authorities were not more concerned by the integrity of the
process leading to a new constitution and that it must mention several
problems, many of them already mentioned in previous PACE, Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR recommendations:
- the inaccuracy of the voting lists containing the names
of many people residing permanently abroad or even deceased, leading
to claims that these identities were usurped by people who then
voted several times;
- allegations of large-scale organized vote buying and carousel
voting as well as pressure on voters;
- the media playing field was once again not a level one
and the political parties were not able to fulfil their duties of
informing and motivating the public;
- the misuse of administrative resources by executive bodies;
- allegations of pressure on, and attempts to corrupt, election
officials;
- shortcomings in the training of precinct election officials,
particularly during counting;
- the lack of mobile voting effectively excluded disabled
citizens from the process.
The delegation urges the authorities to address these issues
in order to build trust in the voting process and in politics in
general to ensure a genuinely democratic future for Armenia.
While in Armenia, the delegation met leaders and representatives
of parliamentary groups and parties, the Chairperson of the CEC,
representatives of civil society and the media as well as OSCE/ODIHR
experts.
