Tuesday, February 9 2016 10:31

The report of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) on the Constitutional referendum in Armenia cannot fully reflect the situation in the course of the referendum, because the few ODIHR experts were unable to monitor the situation at all constituencies of the republic and they prepared their report based on observation at a few polling stations and media reports, Hovhannes Sahakyan, member of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), Head of the Armenian Standing Parliamentary Committee on State and Legal Affairs, has told ArmInfo.

Sahakyan touches on the OSCE/ODIHR experts' remarks that the conduct of the referendum reflected the absence of relevant complaint mechanisms and accountability for electoral offences. The RPA member stresses that he does not share the experts' opinion and that all the complaints by the public and political organizations, ordinary citizens and mass media were taken into account, investigated and some of them led to criminal persecution. Sahakyan also disagrees with the remarks about misuse of public resources in campaigns. He says that all officials involved in the conduct of the referendum did not abuse office and held the campaign after their working hours. 

As regards the European experts' remarks about the inaccuracy in the voter lists, Sahakyan says that the current legislation does not allow excluding from the lists the citizens, who are temporarily absent from the country. As for the OSCE/ODIHR recommendation to publicize the voter lists signed after the voting in order to enhance the public confidence in electoral processes, Sahakyan says, "The impression is that the European experts have started to criticize the new Electoral Code of Armenia, which does not exist yet, because some of the problems they have mentioned will be settled by the new Electoral Code. The matter also concerns the voter lists. Many problems raised by the public and the experts will by all means be considered and settled during the debates on the new draft Electoral Code", Sahakyan says. 

To note, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) says in its final report on the Constitutional referendum in Armenia: "The conduct of the referendum reflected the absence of meaningful actions over the previous three years to address prior OSCE/ODIHR recommendations to improve confidence and public trust in the electoral process, including by improving accuracy of voter lists, preventing misuse of public resources in campaigns, and strengthening safeguards against voting day irregularities as well as the effectiveness of complaint mechanisms and accountability for electoral offences". The experts point out that despite efforts to work in a transparent and professional manner, the referendum administration suffered from lack of trust among stakeholders and the widespread perception that lower-level commissions were incapable of performing their duties in an impartial manner. At the same time the experts note that Armenia has a passive voter registration system based on the state population register maintained by the police. The final voter lists contained 2,566,998 eligible voters. The police made efforts to improve trust in the voter register but various stakeholders reported unresolved longstanding problems with accuracy of the voter lists, including an unduly high number of registrations at some addresses and deceased people on the voter lists. "Particular concerns over potential for manipulation were raised by the fact that the voter lists include the names of many people living abroad who would only be eligible to vote if physically present in the country", the experts note in the report. They also say that basic freedoms of association, expression, assembly, and movement were largely respected during the campaign period, however, the campaign was highly polarized and focused on a few aspects of the proposed new constitutional framework. Proponents of the constitutional amendments highlighted benefits of changing the political system while opponents claimed that the amendments were designed for the incumbent President and ruling party to retain power".

According to the report, following the recent lifting of legal restrictions on campaigning by public officials, state officials led the "Yes" campaign and the authorities mobilized extensive public resources to campaign in favour of constitutional amendments. The media environment is perceived to be politicized. A large number of media outlets operate in a limited advertisement market and television remains the main source of information. The safety and security of the work of journalists remains of serious concern. Campaign regulations for the media are defined by the Referendum Law and the Electoral Code, but lack clarity. Almost all parliamentary factions took advantage of the opportunity to receive free airtime. Paid advertising airtime was available only for parliamentary factions and was mainly purchased for the "Yes" campaign. The experts also mention that the legal framework for electoral complaints and appeals is sufficiently detailed and the system is characterized by formalized procedures. However, the Constitution grants the right to appeal referenda results only to the president and at least one-fifth of the members of parliament. This restricted legal standing to bring appeals raises questions about de facto availability of a judicial remedy for referendum stakeholders.  Credibility of dispute resolution was undermined by the lack of trust and confidence in the referendum administration and courts. At polling stations where the OSCE/ODIHR RET observed the counting procedure, serious problems included interference and intimidation by proxies of supporters of the "Yes" campaign leading to alteration of the actual vote results. Citizen observers, opposition groups, and media reported allegations of widespread irregularities, interference and intimidation in the voting and counting process throughout the country.  The authorities pledged that all allegations were being investigated by the CEC and law enforcement bodies while denying that irregularities were systematic and suggesting that leading civil society groups were biased because they were known to oppose the referendum. The CEC rejected a detailed complaint by one opposition party seeking invalidation of the results on the basis that legal and procedural violations were systematic and widespread. A subsequent request for the Constitutional Court to declare the referendum invalid on the same grounds was not supported by the required one fifth of the members of parliament. 

To recall, according to the Central Electoral Commission, the turnout made up 50.74% of the 2 mln 566 thsd 998 voters. "63.37% voted for 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 mln 337 thsd 670," the CEC says.  The opposition considers the referendum results to be rigged