Ad Hoc Committee for the Observation of the Presidential Elections in Armenia
First Round (19 February 2003)
Election observation report
| Doc. 9742
| 18 March 2003
1 Introduction
1. At the invitation of the Minister
for Foreign Affairs of Armenia, the Bureau of the Parliamentary
Assembly decided, on 9 December 2002, to set up an ad hoc committee to observe the
presidential elections in Armenia which took place on 19 February
2003. The ad hoc committee
operated as part of the international election observation mission
that was, in addition, composed of the Election Observation Mission
of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR).
2. Based on the proposals of the Assembly’s political groups,
the
ad hoc committee was composed
as follows:
- Socialist Group
(SOC)
- Ms Jane Griffiths, United
Kingdom Mr Jerzy Jaskiernia, Poland
- Group of the European People’s Party (EPP)
- Mr Renzo Gubert, Italy
- Lord Kilclooney, United Kingdom
- Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group (LDR)
- Mr Rein Voog, Estonia
- Lord Russell-Johnston, United Kingdom
- European Democratic Group (EDG)
- Mr Miroslav Ouzký,
Czech Republic Group of the Unified European
Left (UEL) Mr Jirí Mastálka, Czech Republic
- Secretariat of the Council of Europe
- Mr Vladimir Dronov, Head of
the Interparliamentary Co-operation Unit
- Mr Bastiaan Klein, Administrator
3. The ad hoc committee
met from Monday 17 till Thursday 20 February 2003. I was elected
chairman as well as rapporteur of the ad
hoc committee.
4. In addition to observing the elections, the members of the ad hoc committee held a series of
meetings with the candidates and their representatives, including
the incumbent President of the Republic, the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, the Chairman of the Central Election Commission, the Speaker
of the Armenian Parliament and members of the Armenian delegation
to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ambassadors
of Council of Europe member states, the Special Representative of
the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in Armenia, the head
of mission and members of the Election Observation Mission of the OSCE/
ODIHR in Armenia, as well as representatives of the mass media and
civil society.
5. On election day the ad hoc committee
split into five teams in order to observe the actual voting and
vote count. Members visited more than fifty polling stations in
and around Yerevan. The press statement made at the end of the election
observation can be found in Appendix I.
6. The ad hoc committee
relied heavily on the resources of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission in Armenia, headed by Peter Eicher, and would like to record
that co-operation was excellent. It also wishes to thank the Armenian
Parliament for its ready assistance and Ms Natalia Voutova, Special
Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
in Armenia, for her invaluable help.
2 The political context
7. The 2003 presidential elections,
as well as the upcoming parliamentary elections in May 2003, are
an important test for the consolidation of democracy in Armenia.
These presidential elections were the fourth since independence
was declared in 1991 and the first since Armenia became a member
of the Council of Europe in January 2001. The presidential elections
in 1996 and 1998, which were observed by the Parliamentary Assembly,
did not meet international standards for democratic elections, with
serious irregularities being recorded by international observers.
The 1999 parliamentary elections were seen as a step towards meeting international
standards; however, serious irregularities were still being noted
by international observers.
8. The presidential elections were also the first national elections
to take place after the events on 27 October 1999, when five gunmen
entered the parliament building and assassinated several leading
figures of Armenia’s political establishment effectively “beheading”
the Armenian Government. Despite the fact that the events were shown
on television as they unfolded, the trial of the assassins has been
continuing for over two years with many interruptions and no conclusion
in sight. The accountability for the events on 27 October 1999 became
a campaign issue with the candidacy for the presidency of Stephan
Demirchyan, the son of the murdered Speaker of the Parliament, Karen
Demirchyan.
3 The pre-election period
3.1 Legal framework
9. These elections were governed
by the Election Code which was adopted in 1999 and amended in 2002. The
amendments adopted in 2002 reflected some of the recommendations
made by the OSCE/ODIHR and the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission.
The amended Election Code provides a basis upon which the election
could be conducted that conforms to international democratic standards.
10. As a result of Armenia’s ratification of the European Convention
on Human Rights, notably Protocol No. 1, Article 3, election-related
complaints can now be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights
in Strasbourg.
11. A serious flaw in the Election Code is the lack of a provision
that requires the Central Election Commission (CEC) and the territorial
election commissions (TECs) to publish worksheets showing the full breakdown
of the results of the level of election commissions below them.
The lack of such a provision seriously undermines the transparency
of the tabulation process. The ad hoc committee
strongly urged the CEC to publish the breakdown of the results of
the TECs and to require the TECs to do the same for the results
of the precinct election commissions (PECs) under their jurisdiction.
12. The election was administered by a three-tiered election administration
consisting of the Central Election Commission (CEC), fifty-six territorial
election commissions and approximately 1 865 precinct election commissions
at the level of the polling stations.
13. The election commissions are composed of nine members, three
nominated by the president and one by each of the six factions in
parliament as established when the parliament was constituted after
the last parliamentary elections. As three of the factions were
supporting the candidacy of the incumbent president, the CEC and
lower level election commissions were composed for two thirds of
supporters of the president. While the appointment formula in itself
is not problematic, the imbalanced composition of the CEC and other
election commissions for these elections resulted in most candidates
expressing a lack of confidence in the impartiality of the election
administration.
14. Armenian citizens residing abroad had the opportunity to vote
for the presidential elections in the diplomatic missions of Armenia.
The ad hoc committee was informed
by the Deputy Foreign Minister that approximately 15 000 Armenian
citizens were expected to use their right to vote abroad.
15. The ad hoc committee
was informed that, on a number of occasions, some of the other international observers
saw intimidation in certain PECs.
16. In general, the election administration carried out the technical
preparations for these elections in an efficient and satisfactory
manner.
17. During its meeting with the chairman of the CEC the ad hoc committee was informed that
the CEC interpreted the provisions for election observation in the
Election Code in such a manner that observers and candidate proxies
would only be allowed to observe the vote and vote count from a
pre-designated place in the polling stations. The ad hoc committee was glad to note
that this did not materialise and that in practically all occasions
international observers were allowed to move freely in the polling
stations during the vote and vote count.
3.2 Voter and candidate registration
18. The CEC registered eleven candidates
for the presidency by the registration deadline of 20 January 2003.
Two of the candidates later withdrew from the race before the 9
February deadline for candidates’ withdrawal. Two candidates, including
the incumbent president, Robert Kocharyan, are nominees of citizens’ initiatives.
The other candidates were opposition political party leaders nominated
by their respective parties. The ad hoc committee
regretted that there were no women among the candidates.
19. The CEC denied the registration of one candidate, former Minister
for Foreign Affairs, Raffi Hovhannisyan, on the grounds that he
failed the ten-year citizenship requirement as set out in the Election Code.
Mr Hovhannisyan filed a series of appeals against the decision of
the CEC, but the different courts ruled against him. The Hovhannisyan
case revived the controversy during the 1998 presidential elections
over whether Robert Kocharyan met the legal citizenship and residency
requirements, with six candidates appealing his candidacy for these
elections to the CEC.
20. Despite some improvements, voters’ lists remain a concern
in Armenia. Voters’ lists are compiled locally and no central voters’
register exists, making it impossible to check the lists for double
entries. Despite the fact that the voters’ list is updated twice
yearly, still a relatively high number of double entries, deceased
people and citizens residing abroad remained on the voters list
therewith opening a potential for manipulation and illegal voting.
21. In nearly all cases the voters’ lists were published by the
PECs forty days before the election date, allowing voters an opportunity
to correct their individual data. As a result of a decision by the
Constitutional Court in October 2002, voters who could not find
their names on the voters list during election day were able to
appeal to courts to obtain a certificate permitting them to vote.
22. Military personnel were registered to vote in the polling
station nearest to their place of stationing. As a result of complaints
during former elections, the CEC did not provide for polling stations
within military bases itself.
3.3 The election campaign
23. The election campaign started
on 21 January 2003 and quickly developed into a vigorous nation-wide campaign
with active public participation. The field of nine candidates,
with opposition candidates not hesitating to criticise the government,
provided the voters with a genuine choice on election day. Campaigning
turned out to be more personality based than issue based with a
main campaign issue being the support for or opposition against
the incumbent president.
24. Regrettably, the election campaign was marred by disturbances,
including the stabbing and beating of a member of parliament on
4 February 2003, and patterns of intimidation and alleged election
fraud. The cumulative effect of these practices was that the election
campaign took place in an atmosphere of insecurity and lack of trust
in the democratic process.
25. The ad hoc committee
was told that the use of public resources in favour of the incumbent
was widespread, including public officials being engaged full time
in the incumbent’s campaign while still performing their official
duties. Moreover, several candidates reported difficulties in securing
campaign offices or receiving orders to vacate campaign offices
in buildings that suddenly were declared unsafe. Observers also
verified many allegations that public sector employees, factory
workers, teachers, students and others were instructed to attend
the incumbent’s rallies. Although the Armenian law does not prohibit
the use of public buildings for campaign purposes or the participation
of some public officials in political campaigns, the unequal treatment by
the authorities in favour of the incumbent meant that the playing
field was not even for all candidates during the election campaign.
3.4 The media
26. The situation of the media
has far from improved in comparison to previous elections. Television,
and to a lesser extent radio, are still the most important sources
of information and news in Armenia. Newspapers only have a local
outreach due to poor circulation and economic problems. Public television
did not meet its obligations under the Law on Radio and TV Broadcasting
to provide voters with information on all candidates free from bias
or prejudice. While public TV met its legal obligation to provide
free advertising time to all candidates its news coverage was heavily
biased in favour of the incumbent as were its analytical and other programmes.
Private broadcasters were even more biased in favour of the incumbent,
largely ignoring opposition candidates.
27. Two independent television channels, A1+ and Noyan Tapan,
that were expected to have a more independent and diverse editorial
line, went off the air several months before the elections after
losing their frequencies in a troubled tendering process for broadcasting
licences. It is unlikely that either A1+ or Noyan Tapan will be
back on the air before the next parliamentary elections in May 2003.
The absence of these two channels further contributed to the lack
of alternative and pluralistic information available to voters.
28. The unresolved grenade attack on a journalist in October and
the assassination of the head of the Public Television Council in
December 2002, as well as the lost licences and reports of intimidation
of journalists had a chilling effect on the media environment and
created an atmosphere of self-censorship among some broadcasters
and journalists.
29. The printed media together provided a wide plurality of views
but each of them showed a strong bias to one candidate or the other,
with the state-funded Hayastani Hanrapetutyun clearly
favouring the incumbent president. All things together it can be
concluded that the media did not provide the voters with the wide
range of impartial information necessary to make an informed choice
about their political preference.
4 Election day
30. During election day the vote
generally took place in a calm and orderly manner. In most polling
stations the election procedures were well conducted and transparent
for observers and proxies. Unfortunately, a number of serious irregularities
took place including ballot box stuffing and multiple voting.
31. While the voting process itself was well conducted, the vote
count and tabulation process turned out to be more problematic.
Further instances of ballot box stuffing were observed as well as
falsification of the election protocols and polling station results.
Additionally, preliminary results from some polling stations showed
a striking disparity from an otherwise consistent pattern of results.
In this regard, a letter by Peter Eicher, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR
Election Observation Mission, to Professor Sahradyan, Chairman of
the Central Election Commission, details some of the statistical
discrepancies found such as implausibly high voter turnouts in a
large number of PECs, including several with a voter turnout higher
than 100%; a large number of PECs where more ballots were counted
than issued to voters; final results which differ from the protocols issued
directly after the counting; and several polling stations where
votes reported for one candidate in the preliminary results appear
to have been switched to another candidate in the final results.
Finally, the letter notes that the total number of voters on the
voters’ list was 20 080 higher than the total number of eligible
voters announced three days before the elections. At the time of
writing these OSCE/ODIHR findings are disputed by the CEC.
32. The ad hoc committee
welcomed the significant number of candidate proxies present in
nearly all polling stations. Domestic observers were found to be
present in about half of the polling stations. Besides the International
Election Observation Mission these elections were also observed
by the Commonwealth of Independent States and the International
Foundation for Election Systems (IFES).
33. The problematic nature of the voters’ list in Armenia was
evident during election day. A large number of voters, more than
10 000, applied to the courts to be placed on the voters’ list during
election day, resulting in relatively long waiting times at the
courts to obtain voters permits.
34. The ad hoc committee
regretted that there are no provisions in the election law for mobile
ballot boxes. Moreover, it was noted that most polling stations
were difficult, if not downright impossible, to access for disabled
people. This effectively disfranchised the disabled as well as sick
or otherwise home-bound voters.
5 Preliminary results of the
ballot
35. On 20 February the CEC announced
that, based on the preliminary results, none of the candidates had passed
the 50% plus one vote threshold and that a second round would be
organised between the two candidates who had obtained the most votes,
incumbent president Robert Kocharyan and Stephan Demirchyan.
36. On the evening of 25 February, six days after the vote, the
CEC announced the final results of the ballot. With a 63.18% voters’
turnout, Robert Kocharyan obtained 49.48% of the vote, Stephan Demirchyan
obtained 28.22% and Arthashes Geghamyan 17.66% of the vote. The
other candidates failed to win a significant percentage of the vote.
A second round between Robert Kocharyan and Stephan Demirchyan was
confirmed for 5 March 2003.
37. With the announcement of the final results the CEC published
a detailed breakdown of the results up to the level of the polling
stations. While the publication of this breakdown is welcomed, the
long delay in announcing the results contributed to the lack of
confidence in the results by the opposition candidates and their
supporters. On the same day Assembly President, Peter Schieder,
issued a statement calling for a free and fair second round of the
presidential elections. The full text of the statement is provided
in Appendix II.
38. A team of three members of the ad
hoc committee, Lord Russell-Johnston, Mr Renzo Gubert
and Mr Jerzy Jaskiernia, will observe the second round of these
elections. Their findings will be presented in a second part to
this report.
6 Conclusions
and recommendations
39. The capacity of Armenia to
organise free and democratic elections according to internationally
accepted democratic standards is an inherent obligation of Armenia’s
membership of the Council of Europe. The ad
hoc committee therefore regrets that these elections,
despite some positive aspects, fell short of international standards
in several key aspects. While the extent of the irregularities is
hard to assess, their occurrence itself stains the democratic process
as a whole. The Assembly strongly urges the Armenian authorities
to ensure that the upcoming parliamentary elections in May 2003
are free from irregularities and conform to internationally accepted
democratic standards.
40. It is essential that a wide range of pluralistic information
is available to the voters to make an informed choice on election
day. The ad hoc committee
therefore expresses its hope that the problematic tendering process
for the A1+ and Noyan Tapan television channels will be resolved
quickly and resolutely. The ad hoc committee
also wants to remind the Public Radio and Television Council about
its responsibility to ensure that public television provides balanced
information free from bias or prejudice.
41. The ad hoc committee
welcomed the publication of a detailed breakdown of the results
of these elections by the CEC. However, in order to ensure the transparency
of the tabulation process at all times, the publication of a detailed
breakdown of the results by the CEC and TECs should be required
by law and not left to the benevolence of the relevant election
authorities. The ad hoc committee
therefore calls upon the Armenian Parliament to adopt such a provision
in the Election Code.
42. To avoid the disfranchising of disabled and home-bound voters,
the ad hoc committee would
like to suggest to the Armenian Parliament to adopt provisions in
the Election Code to provide for mobile ballot boxes. Moreover,
it calls upon the relevant election authorities to ensure better
access to the polling stations for disabled voters.
Appendix 1 –
Press release
Armenian
voting generally smooth, but vote count and overall process fall
short in key respects
Yerevan, 20 February 2003 – Voting in yesterday’s presidential
election in Armenia was generally calm and well-administered, but
the counting process was flawed and the long-term election process
fell short of international standards in several key respects. This
is the conclusion of the 200-strong international election observation
mission deployed by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe.
“It is encouraging that election day went reasonably well,
but serious irregularities did not enable us to make an overall
positive assessment,” said Lord Russell-Johnston, head of the Parliamentary
Assembly delegation.
“While we were pleased to see an active and vigorous campaign,
we are concerned about serious shortcomings that were evident during
the run-up to the election,” added Peter Eicher, the head of the
ODIHR long-term observer mission. “We urge the authorities to use
the time before the upcoming parliamentary vote to address these
shortcomings.”
The international observers noted that the participation of
nine candidates provided voters with a genuine choice. There was
a vigorous, countrywide campaign with active public participation.
The election was administered efficiently within an improved legislative
framework. The voting process was generally well-conducted, although
there were cases of ballot-box stuffing and intimidation of candidate
proxies. Serious irregularities took place during the count in a
number of polling stations visited by international observers.
The long-term electoral process was clouded by a number of
shortcomings. These included patterns of intimidation and cases
of disruption of campaign events, as well as one serious instance
of violence. There was widespread use of public resources for the
campaign of the incumbent. Public TV failed to meet its obligation
to provide balanced and unbiased reporting.
Appendix 2 –
Press release
Peter Schieder
calls for free and fair second round of Armenian presidential election
Strasbourg, 26 February 2003 – Council of Europe Parliamentary
Assembly President Peter Schieder today called on the Armenian authorities
and the opposition to calm the political climate in the country
in the run-up to the second round of the presidential election.
“It is the duty of the authorities to do their best to overcome
tensions without resorting to disproportionate means to maintain
public order,” Peter Schieder said, calling for the immediate release
of opposition campaigners arrested. The President also called for
the opposition to fully respect the constitutional and legal order
of the country.
“We are seriously concerned about the shortcomings and irregularities
reported by the international election observation mission after
the first round. If Armenia wants to live up to its democratic obligations
as a member country of the Council of Europe, such irregularities
should not be reproduced during the second round,” he stressed.
Peter Schieder also appealed for greater transparency in the
counting process and for the rapid publication of voting results.
“The Parliamentary Assembly stands ready to observe the second round
on 5 March alongside observers from the OSCE/ODIHR,” he announced.
“We expect a free and fair outcome of the presidential election,
one which allows for the results to be accepted by all those concerned,
thus helping to consolidate democratic stability in the country,”
Peter Schieder concluded.
An Assembly delegation chaired by Lord Russell-Johnston (LDR,
United Kingdom) observed the presidential election in Armenia on
19 February as part of the international election observation mission.
The parliamentarians met the presidential candidates, members of
the government, representatives of political parties, election organisers,
NGOs and members of the media.
