Ad Hoc Committee for the Observation of the Presidential Elections in Armenia
Second Round (5 March 2003)
Election observation report
| Doc. 9742 Addendum
| 31 March 2003
1 Introduction
1. Following the inconclusive results of the first round
(19 February) where none of the presidential hopefuls got the required
minimum of votes provided for in the legislation in force, a second
round was announced to be held on 5 March 2003. To win in the second
round, a candidate only needed to get the absolute majority of votes.
2. The ad hoc committee
once again operated as part of the International Election Observation
Mission (IEOM) 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).
3. Similarly to the first round, the second round was also observed
by a delegation from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
which, like in the first round, pre-empted the IEOM press conference
with their own press statement that, once again, was in full discord
with the findings of the IEOM.
4. Due to earlier arrangements of the committee members, the
actual composition of the
ad hoc committee during
the second round was as follows:
- Socialist
Group (SOC)
- Mr Jerzy Jaskiernia,
Poland
- Group of the European People’s Party (EPP)
- Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group (LDR)
- Lord Russell-Johnston, United
Kingdom
- European Democratic Group (EDG)
- Group of the Unified European Left (UEL)
- Secretariat of the Council of Europe
- Mr Vladimir Dronov, Head of
the Interparliamentary Co-operation Unit
5. The ad hoc committee
met from 4 to 6 March 2003.
6. In addition to observing the elections, the ad hoc committee held a series of
meetings with the two candidates and their representatives, including
the incumbent President of the Republic and his rival Mr Stepan Demirchyan;
the Chairman of the Central Election Commission (CEC); the Speaker
of the Armenian Parliament and members of the Armenian delegation
to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; the Chairman
of the Constitutional Court of Armenia, Mr Gagik Haroutyunian; 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.
7. On election day the ad hoc committee
split into two teams to observe the actual voting and vote count. Members
visited more than twenty polling stations in and around Yerevan.
The press statement made at the end of the election observation
can be found in the appendix.
8. The ad hoc committee,
once again, 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
9. After the IEOM statement of 20 February (appended
to part 1 of the report covering the first round), additional serious
problems and irregularities with regard to the first round came
to light. Those included CEC’s failure to publish a prompt and detailed
breakdown of preliminary results of the first round contributing
to a lack of confidence in election results; confirmation by international
observers of numerous additional cases of ballot-box stuffing; significant
discrepancies and implausible figures in the official final results
from a large number of polling stations and general failure of the
authorities to hold accountable those responsible for irregularities
in the first round.
3 The pre-election period for the second round
10. The period between the two rounds was marred with
serious shortcomings and grave incidents. In response to public
uproar concerning the results of the first round, the authorities
have unleashed a wave of administrative detentions involving more
than 200 protesters. Of those, at least seventy-seven were given
jail sentences, often in closed hearings and without the benefit
of counsel. The detained included many opposition proxies and campaign
staff. In a welcome development, though, seventy-five of those who
were given fifteen days of administrative detention were released
on 3 March following a ruling of the appeals court which, on the eve
of the vote, was still considering the remaining cases.
11. Some opposition leaders in their rhetoric made quite inadmissible
and inflammatory statements. To his credit, the opposition candidate
called on his supporters to confine themselves only to legal actions.
12. Both camps complained of widespread intimidation by their
opponents. Cases of intimidation included, inter
alia, punitive job dismissals of opposition supporters.
13. Public television was heavily biased in favour of the incumbent,
failing to comply with the need to provide balanced reporting on
the candidates.
14. On the positive side, public participation and voter interest
in the election campaign remained high, domestic election monitoring
groups continued their activities; no serious instances of violence
were reported. Of great significance was Armenia’s first ever television
debate involving the candidates.
15. In a dramatic development, on 3 March the Constitutional Court
ruled admissible an appeal of the first round results by one of
the unsuccessful candidates. The candidate, Mr Artashes Geghamyan,
who officially came third in the first round, filed a case asking
the Constitutional Court to invalidate the results of the first round.
Court consideration of the case is under way. Its final ruling may
have extremely serious consequences for the whole outcome of this
election.
4 Election administration
16. Preparations for the second round by the CEC and
most of the territorial electoral committees (TECs) were generally
efficient and in compliance with law. While the composition of electoral
committees was to be the same as in the first round, a high proportion
of precinct electoral committee members was changed, which gives
rise to concern. While the incumbent and parliamentary factions
that support him appoint six of nine members of every committee,
the opposition candidate and his party, who had no entitlement to
appoint members, were only represented by one proxy with no voting
rights. Thus, membership was even more biased in favour of the incumbent
than in the first round.
17. According to the CEC, 10 400 voters who could not find their
names on voter lists on election day of the first round successfully
appealed to courts to obtain a certificate which permitted them
to vote. All these voters could vote in the second round without
having to repeat the procedure.
5 Election day
18. During election day the vote generally took place
in a calm and orderly manner, although tensions were visibly higher
than in the first round. In most polling stations (87% of those
visited by observers) the election procedures were well conducted
and transparent for observers and proxies. In all of the polling
stations visited by this rapporteur he only witnessed excellent
organisation and conduct of the vote. Unfortunately, this was not the
experience of other observers, including those from the ad hoc committee.
19. Of most concern were widespread cases of ballot-box stuffing.
There were numerous confirmed instances of stamped and signed ballots
circulating outside polling stations before and during the voting
day. Problems were reported concerning voting by the military, mainly
open voting.
20. There were confirmed reports of the presence of unauthorised
persons at polling stations who were exerting undue influence there
in support of the incumbent. Intimidation of opposition proxies
was also a cause for concern.
21. The counting process was negatively assessed by observers
at a high proportion of polling stations. Irregularities mostly
involved additional cases of ballot-box stuffing, the addition of
ballot papers after the count had commenced, ungrounded invalidation
of ballot papers supporting one candidate and failure to comply
with key procedures. Once again, unauthorised persons were present
at half of the counts observed.
22. Alarmingly, observers and opposition proxies reported that
they were restricted from observing all aspects of the counting
process. In almost two-thirds of polling stations, copies of results
protocols were not promptly posted at the completion of the count
but, generally, protocols were available to all who requested a copy.
6 Results of the ballot
23. With a simple majority required to win in the second
round, the incumbent won with a wide margin, getting 67.44% of the
votes cast in a situation where turnout was 68.9%.
7 Conclusions and recommendations
24. Regrettably, the second round was no better than
the first round.
25. Recommendations formulated in the report on the first round
fully retain their validity.
26. It is hoped that during the time remaining before the parliamentary
elections in Armenia, scheduled for 25 May, the authorities will
pay heed to criticisms and recommendations articulated by international
observers and will take the corrective action so badly needed for
Armenia to retain its democratic credentials.
27. Given the scope and gravity of irregularities recorded during
Armenia’s presidential elections, this rapporteur believes that
a stronger presence by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe during the May elections is highly advisable.
28. To amplify our concerns, the Bureau may wish to deem it necessary
to send a cross-party pre-electoral mission a month ahead of the
vote. Special effort needs to be made to make sure that all political
groups are represented on the pre-electoral mission.
Appendix – Press release
Observers disappointed that Armenian election
falls short of international standards
Yerevan, 6 March 2003 – Voting
and counting in yesterday’s second-round presidential election in
Armenia were marked by serious irregularities. The overall election
process fell short of international standards. 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.
“I am disappointed; we had hoped for better,” said Peter Eicher,
the head of the ODIHR long-term observation mission. “Once again
we witnessed significant problems on election day, and the period
between the two rounds did not meet international standards for
an open and fair political campaign.”
“At the same time, we want to pay tribute to the vast majority
of Armenia’s voters for their active and honest participation and
to the many poll workers around the country who performed their
duties conscientiously,” added Lord Russell-Johnston, head of the
Parliamentary Assembly delegation. “For Armenia to advance democratically
and to meet its commitments to the Council of Europe, we need the
same attitude from the senior political leadership.”
Of particular concern for international observers were the
numerous, confirmed cases of ballot-box stuffing.
The international observers welcomed that between the rounds
no serious incidents of violence occurred despite the charged political
atmosphere. They were pleased to see broad public involvement in
the election process, as well as the participation of a number of
domestic observer groups. The technical preparations for the second
round of voting were generally efficient.
The period between the two rounds was, however, marred by
a number of shortcomings. These included the detention of opposition
proxies and campaign staff, discrepancies and implausible figures
in the official results for the first round, and a general failure
by the authorities to hold accountable those responsible for irregularities in
the first round. The transparency of the tabulation process was
undercut by the failure to promptly publish full preliminary results
by precinct, thus undermining confidence in the figures.
Public television was again biased in favour of the incumbent
and failed to meet its obligation to provide balanced reporting.
In a positive development, however, the first ever television debate
between presidential candidates took place.
