ARMENIA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS FEBRUARY 2008 Report by Kenneth de Figueiredo NORDEM Report 6/2008
Copyright: the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights/NORDEM and Kenneth de Figueiredo. NORDEM, the Norwegian Resource Bank for Democracy and Human Rights, is a programme of the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights (NCHR), and has as its main objective to actively promote international human rights. NORDEM is jointly administered by NCHR and the Norwegian Refugee Council. NORDEM works mainly in relation to multilateral institutions. The operative mandate of the programme is realised primarily through the recruitment and deployment of qualified Norwegian personnel to international assignments which promote democratisation and respect for human rights. The programme is responsible for the training of personnel before deployment, reporting on completed assignments, and plays a role in research related to areas of active involvement. The vast majority of assignments are channelled through the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. NORDEM Report is a series of reports documenting NORDEM activities and is published jointly by NORDEM and the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights. Series editor: Siri Skåre Series consultants: Lisa Kirkengen, Christian Boe Astrup The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher(s). ISSN: 1503 1330 ISBN: 978-82-8158-058-9 NORDEM Report is available online at: http://www.humanrights.uio.no/forskning/publ/publikasjonsliste.html
Preface The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) established an Election Observation Mission (EOM) to Armenia early January 2008 to monitor the presidential elections in the country on 19 February the same year. The mission was headed by Geert-Hinrich Ahrens and the core team consisted of eleven international members (closer to Election Day (E-day) this number was increase to sixteen). On 15 January 28 Long Term Observers (LTOs), in fourteen teams, were deployed throughout the country. On E-day a total of 333 Short Term Observers (STOs) were observing in more than 1000 polling stations (PSs). This included observers from OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe and the European Parliament, which together with OSCE/ODIHR constituted the International EOM (IEOM). The Norwegian Resource Bank for Democracy and Human Rights (NORDEM) was asked by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to second two LTOs and four STOs. The LTOs were Toril Lund and Kenneth de Figueiredo, who were deployed respectively to the Armavir region and North East Yerevan. The STOs were Kari Hesselberg, Giulia Paglione, Hilde Nordby and Øyvind Hvenekilde Seim. Ms. Hesselberg was deployed to the region of Lori, Ms. Paglione to the Ararat region and Ms. Nordby and Mr. Seim to Armavir. This report draws on the Norwegian observers' observation in Armenia, general findings by the core team and other LTOs during the pre- and post election period as well as by STOs during E-day. Other sources are statements and reports of the EOM, the International Observer Guide, the Electoral Code of the Republic of Armenia and various news- and informational websites. The report should be read in conjunction with the International EOM's Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions and the EOM's Interim reports. 1 The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights / NORDEM University of Oslo April 2008 1 http://www.osce.org/odihr-elections/eom.html
Contents Preface Contents Map of Country Introduction...1 Political background...2 The Legislative Framework...4 The Electoral Administration...4 Voter Registration...7 Candidate registration...8 The Election campaign...8 The Media... 11 Observation on the Polling Day... 12 Observation in Yerevan, by LTO Kenneth de Figueiredo... 12 Observation in Armavir, by LTO Toril Lund... 14 Observation in Armavir, by STO Øyvind H. Seim... 15 Observation in Armavir, by STO Hilde Nordby... 16 Observation in Ararat, by STO Giulia Paglione... 18 Observation in Lori, by STO Kari Hesselberg... 20 The Complaints Process... 22 Conclusions and recommendations... 22 Appendices... 23 Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions on the 19 February 2008 Presidential Election in Armenia Post-Election Interim Report on the 19 February 2008 Presidential Election in Armenia
Map of Country
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 1 Introduction When the police took action to clear the Freedom Square in the centre of Yerevan for protesters early in the morning 1 March, the mass protests against the election results had continued since 20 February, the day after the election. Levon Ter-Petrossian, the main opposition candidate and the nation's first president, claimed the elections were marred by fraud and intimidation in favour of the incumbent prime minister and declared winner of the elections, Serzh Sargsyan. Thus, thousands of his supporters had occupied the central square night and day and held daily protest marches around in the city. Though unsanctioned, the protests were peaceful for nine days. After being forced away from the square, demonstrators regrouped close to the French Embassy where clashes between police and army units on the one side and protesters on the other side broke out. The confrontations officially ended with eight casualties; one policeman and seven civilians, mass arrests and a 20 days state of emergency was declared. The prelude to the protests was Armenia's fifth presidential elections and the fourth observed by OSCE/ODIHR, since their independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The 2008 elections in the southern Caucasian state showed a splintered society with a deep friction between political groups. The International Election Observation Mission stated in their Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions which was published on the day after E-day, that the presidential elections 2008 were "administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards". 2 Thus the elections were judged as a step backwards from the parliamentary elections the previous year, which were characterised as "largely in accordance with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments". 3 On the positive side, the IEOM stressed inter alia, pluralism, free campaign, well organised election commissions, improvement of voters list (VL) and the high number of domestic elections group. Negative aspects included a very one sided (of the political interest of the governing party) composition of the leadership troikas (chairperson, deputy chairperson and secretary) in the election commissions; increasingly tense preelection environment; concern that citizens, especially public employees, could not hold opinions without fear of retribution; collection of passports which created public anxiety about possible election fraud and the impotence of the National Commission on Television and Radio. 4 Even though the IEOM s Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions was by many considered too mild, especially the phrase mostly in line with, the Post- Election Interim Report was more critical. By the time this report was published, the EOM had more time to analyse the results from E-day and it also included numerous recounts held in the days after the elections. Inter alia, it mentions significant procedural 2 http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/02/29775_en.pdf 3 http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2007/05/24424_en.pdf Emphasis in both quotes made by the author. 4 http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/02/29775_en.pdf
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 2 errors in the vote count, including indications of ballot box stuffing and attempts to impede IEOM observers in their activity ; implausibly high turnout at certain PECs (in one case more than 100%) and PSs with a remarkable high number of votes for Sargsyan (in four PSs more than 99%); big differences in the number of invalid votes (in one PS in Qanaqer-Zeitun in Yerevan 28% of the votes were deemed invalid); discrepancies and mistakes in the original count, some of which were significant and raise questions over the political impartiality of PECs and TECs were revealed during the recounts and also the recounts themselves showed shortcomings. 5 Political background When Armenia on 23 August 1991 declared its independence it was the first of the Soviet Republics to do so after the Baltic States had seceded. A referendum on independence in September the same year showed that 94% of the voters were in favour of independence. It should be mentioned that Armenia is the most ethnically homogeneous republic of the ex-soviet Union, with almost 98% Armenians. Still in conflict with Azerbaijan since Armenian separatists in the late eighties started to fight for independence in the autonomous republic of Nagorno Karabakh (situated within Azerbaijan's borders), Armenia headed into a turbulent decade. The conflict led to displacement of a large number of Armenians (and Azerbaijanis) and the borders to Azerbaijan and Turkey were closed and still are today. In 1994 a cease fire was obtained, leaving the Armenian population in control of Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijani territories between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The main opposition contender for the presidential elections 2008, Levon Ter-Petrossian, was elected as the first president of independent Armenia in 1991. The country experienced an economical recession during the nineties as most of the ex-soviet republics did, but in Armenia's case this was amplified by the economic blockade of two of its neighbour countries. Levon Ter-Petrossian won again in the first round of the presidential elections in 1996. However, the elections were heavily criticised by OSCE/ODIHR, which stated that the "encouraging signs of improvement in the electoral law and administration" was overshadowed by "the number and frequency of the breaches of the election law". Early 1998 Ter-Petrossian resigned following a dispute on Nagorno Karabakh. Robert Kocharyan became acting president and beat his main opponent Karen Demirchyan in the second round of the extraordinary presidential elections the same year. OSCE/ODIHR once again stated that the elections did "not meet the OSCE standards". Karen Demirchyan hit back when he, together with Vazgen Sargsyan, formed the Miasnutyun alliance which won the majority of the seats in the parliamentary elections 1999. Demirchyan was elected the Speaker of Parliament, while Vazgen Sargsyan became Prime Minister. However, October 27 the same year the nation was traumatised by five gunmen entering the National Assembly and holding the MPs and 5 http://osce.mobi/documents/odihr/2008/03/30090_en.pdf
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 3 representatives from the government hostage. Demirchyan and Sargsyan were killed together with two deputy speakers, the minister of emergency and at least three others. They were hailed as martyrs by Levon Ter-Petrossian and his allies in the pre-election campaign 2008 and in the post-election protests at the same time as president Kocharian was criticised for not doing enough in the investigating the crime, indicating that the president himself might have anything to do with the assassinations. In the presidential elections 2003 Robert Kocharian faced Karen Demirchyan's son Stepan in the second round, in which Kocharian won with a clear margin. Also this time the elections fell short of international standards. After the parliamentary elections 2007, five parties were elected to the parliament through the proportional lists. The Armenian Republic Party headed by prime minister Serzh Sargsyan got close to 50% of the seats in the parliament, while the other parties in the governmental coalition; Prosperous Armenia and Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnaktsutiun got respectively 25 and 16 seats (of 131). Prosperous Armenia did not field its own candidate, but were actively supporting Serzh Sargsyan's candidature. The opposition consisted of Orinats Yerkir, which leader and presidential candidate Artur Baghdasaryan joined forces with Sargsyan after the presidential elections. The Heritage Party is the other opposition party and like Prosperous Armenia they did not launch any candidates for the presidential elections. Only late in the preelection campaign the party decided to stand behind the candidature of Levon Ter- Petrossian. The presidential elections 2008 saw nine candidates competing for the position of head of state. The candidatures of two other candidates were rejected on formal grounds. Presidential candidates: Serzh Sargsyan, prime minister and chairman of the Republican Party, was the incumbent president Robert Kocharian's favoured successor. As Kocharian, Sargsyan is also from Nagorno Karabakh. He was the dominant candidate in the pre-election campaign, having the whole infrastructure of the Republican Party at his disposal and receiving only positive or neutral coverage in the broadcasting media. The official results show that Sargsyan received 52.8% of the votes. 6 Levon Ter-Petrossian was Sargsyan's main contender. After he left the seat as the country's first president he avoided contact with the media until he announced his candidacy in October 2007. He had the backing of 16 minor parties, before Heritage Party decided to support him. Amongst them were Armenian National Movement (founded by Ter-Petrossian himself) and the Armenian People's Party and Republic Party led respectively by Stepan Demirchyan and Vazgen Sargsyan's brother Aram. Officially Ter-Petrossian received 21.5% of the votes. Artur Baghdasaryan is founder and chairperson of Orinats Yerkir since 1996. Born in 1968 he was the youngest of the presidential candidates. He ran as opposition candidate, but a little more than a week after the elections joined sides with Serzh Sargsyan. 17.7% of the valid votes were cast for the Orinats Yerkir candidate. Vahan Hovhannisyan was Dashnaktsutiun's candidate. Dashnaktsutiun is the oldest political party in Armenia, founded already in 1890. It was active as a diaspora organization during Soviet times and is still associated with the large Armenian diaspora. 6 This and other results are from http://www.defacto.am/index.php?op=71396441
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 4 In the aftermath of the presidential elections, Vahan Hovhannisyan withdrew as vice speaker of parliament. Hovhannisyan achieved 6.2% of the votes. The other five candidates played only a minor role in the elections and were virtually invisible during the pre-election campaign. Vazgen Manukyan from the National Democratic Union got actually more than 40% of the votes in the presidential elections 1996 and reached third place in 1998. This time around, however, his following was insignificant. Tigran Karapetyan is better known as the founder and head of ALM media holding and as a host of a popular family show, but ran as the People's Party's candidate. He, as well as National Accord Party's candidate Aram Harutiunyan, were not noticeable at all in the LTO's area of responsibilty (AoR) during the pre-election campaign. But when it was time for recounts they had complained and demanded recounts in several PSs (Karapetyan in eight PSs in TEC 10, Harutiunyan in 21 PSs in TEC 1, 2 and 4). Artashes Geghamyan from the National Unity Party, who in the rally the LTO covered, spent most of his time attacking Levon Ter-Petrossian, and the selfnominee Arman Melikyan constitute the rest of the race. These five minor candidates each received between 0.17% and 1.3% of the total of the valid votes. The Legislative Framework In 1995 the constitution was adopted, and amended in 2005. Following the constitution presidential elections are held every fifth year. The winner of the presidential elections must receive more than 50% of the votes. If no candidates achieve this result, the two candidates who receive the most votes will compete in a second round of elections held within 14 days after the first round. A president can only serve two consecutive terms. The election code from 1999 has been amended several times, last time in November and December 2007. Other laws that regulates aspects of the elections are the law on political parties, the law on carrying out meetings, assemblies, demonstrations and processions, the administrative procedures act, the law on television and radio broadcasting, the law on the constitutional court and the criminal code. The Electoral Administration The elections are administered by a three-tiered system of election commissions; one Central Election Commission (CEC), 41 Territorial Election Commissions (TECs) and 1923 Precinct Election Commissions (PECs). The commissions consist of eight members each, including a leading troika with chairperson, deputy chair and secretary. The CEC consists of one member appointed by the president, two members appointed by the court and the five parties (Republican Party, Prosperous Armenia, Dashnaktsutiun, Orinats Yerkir and Heritage Party) represented in the parliament have each one member. Each CEC member appoints one member for each TEC and each TEC member appoints
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 5 one member of each PEC in their constituency. Thus, the lower election commissions all reflect the composition of the CEC. The five TECs in the LTO's AoR in north-east Yerevan seemed well organised and worked according to the time schedule during the preparations before E-day. Most of the TEC members had experience from the parliamentary elections the previous year, but since the composition of the parties in parliament had changed since that time, naturally some TEC members also had to be changed. In addition the judiciary was for the presidential elections provided with two members in each election commission. The representation of women in the TECs was quite low; from none in TEC 2 to three in TEC 4. When it comes to political representation in the troika it was even more one sided. All TEC chairpersons and deputy chairs in AoR belonged either to the Republican Party or were appointed by the President, with the exception of the deputy in TEC 2, who belonged to another governmental party, Dashnaktsutiun. The opposition had no representatives in the troikas. In each TEC there were between 32 and 35 PECs. The women's representation in the election commissions on this level was significantly higher; generally the women's proportion exceeded 40%, while in TEC 1 was more than 58%. The political representation in the leading troikas, however, was rather homogenous. In TEC 10 the opposition (at this stage, Orinats Yerkir and Heritage Party) and Dashnaktsutiun, had no representatives in the troika, whatsoever. Dashnaktsutiun had only three deputy chairs and the same amount of secretaries in the whole AoR (170 PECs); Orinats Yerkir had one chair, two deputy chairs and three secretaries; and Heritage Party had three chairs and two deputy chairs. All the Heritage Party's chairpersons were in TEC 4, which is considered a stronghold for the party. The PECs, as well as the TECs, elect the troikas themselves. Even though the TECs generally shared all information and gave the LTOs access to their meetings, it was not always easy to find any of the members in the offices. The big majority of times the LTO team arrived the TECs in office hours without previous appointment, there were no members around, even though they had made a working schedule for who was to be on duty at all times. One secretary of a TEC even instructed the LTO interpreter to not visit the TEC unannounced. This happened after an incident when the LTO team met closed doors at the TEC, which was situated in the community administration building. Instead of finding TEC members, the team discovered a big amount of campaign material for Serzh Sargsyan placed outside the doors of the TEC. Meanwhile, when the LTOs tried to enquire about the material, the flags and placards were put away in the storage room of the building by people working for the administration. This of course violates the election code article 22.1, which imposes restrictions on pre-election campaigning by local self-government servants and prohibits the use of premises etc. which are provided for the performance of one's official duties for campaign purposes. 7 There were numerous requests for recounts in this LTO s AoR. The most conspicuous ones came from Aram Harutiunyan who demanded recounts in 21 PECs in TEC 1, 2 and 4. Another minor candidate, Tigran Karapetyan, requested closer scrutiny in eight PECs in TEC 10. Artur Baghdasaryan's proxies demanded recounts in eleven PECs in AoR, Ter-Petrossian's proxies in three and Sargsyan's proxy in one. 7 http://www.legislationline.org/upload/legislations/e3/11/0913e43081a9aeae6716562b15c6.pdf
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 6 The election code, article 40.2 states that the deadline for requests for recounts is at 14:00 h on the day after E-day, further the TECs shall commence the recounts 9:00 two days after the voting and work till 18:00 every day until 14:00 five days after E-day. This means that only three and a half day will be used to meet the request for recounts. Keeping in mind that the recount shall be done in the order the TECs receive the requests 8, this means that in TECs with many requests the last ones received may not be recounted at all. And indeed, due to many requests TEC 1 two requests of recounts by Baghdasaryan's proxy were not done and in TEC 4 only seven out of twelve recounts were completed. It must be said that the last TEC did not only do the count extremely slowly, but they were also much less thorough than their colleagues in other TECs. E.g. did they only recount the invalid ballots and the valid ballots for each candidate, while other TECs in addition, counted number of signatures in the VL, unused ballots, used envelopes and stubs (from ballots). Besides the sheer amount of Harutiunyan's recount requests, there were also a couple of other staggering features about the up to then rather invisible candidate. The requests were allegedly handed the TECs very early. In TEC 4 the TEC claimed that the presidential candidate delivered the requests himself just passed midnight on election night, but the STOs in the TEC team which was there at the time saw neither him nor a log of it in the journal. TEC 1 received his request not much later. This means the claim for recounts had to be written before, at least, most of the counts were finished. 9 The fact that there were no proxies from Aram Harutiunyan registered in any of the 21 PECs he allegedly wished to scrutinise does not enhance the impression that these were serious concerns on behalf of the candidate. Similarly, Tigran Karapetyan had only a registered proxy in one of the eight PECs he requested recount from in TEC 10. During the recounts the LTO team did most of their observations in TEC 4, since there were most problems there. The TEC member from the Heritage Party did not participate in the recounts at all and characterised the Harutiunyan's complaints as phoney and the whole process as a charade. And indeed, the TEC had only time to recount the PECs Harutiunyan requested and not the ones Baghdasaryan's and Ter-Petrossian's proxies complained about. The Orinats Yerkir member, though mostly present, did not take any part in the actual counting. Generally not much was changed after these recounts. However, in one of the PECs the TEC found 34 invalid ballots amongst Levon Ter-Petrossian's ballots. The ballots had all a correct mark for Ter-Petrossian, but they had additional marks on them as well. Altogether, one can say the TEC was more "generous" with accepting ballots from Serzh Sargsyan than from Levon Ter-Petrossian. 8 http://www.legislationline.org/upload/legislations/e3/11/0913e43081a9aeae6716562b15c6.pdf 9 E.g. did Harutiunyan demand a recount in PS 18 in TEC 4, which ended the count approximately three hours after the request of recount had been received!
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 7 Voter Registration The passport and visa departments of the police (OVIR) are responsible for maintaining the Voters List (VL). As of 17 February 2 328 320 voters were registered. The VL is continuously updated and there is one central database, so double entries should in principle be impossible. Several measures were made to improve the accuracy of the VL, such as door-to-door checks by inspectors, public display of the VL both in the PSs and on the CEC web-site and even a voters' hotline was established. The election administration operated with several types of VLs and in one PS one could theoretically find up to six different VLs. In addition to the regular VL there were military lists, which were kept secret until E-day; mobile lists, which were used for hospitals only; a list for police guarding the PS (usually three officers); additional VL, which was intended for persons who want to vote in actual place of residence and not necessarily where they are registered. One could be added to the additional list up to one week before E-day and more than 19 000 voters used this option. Lastly, there was the supplementary VL in which voters with a court decision or decision by OVIR to be included in the VL, were entered on E-day itself. The OVIRs also issue passports, which are the only accepted ID for voters to use in PSs on E-day, except for the military forces, which make use of a special military ID card. However, if a citizen looses his passport there is a provision for the OVIR to issue a special form, Form-9, which can be used as ID by the citizen while waiting for a new passport. The new passport is usually issued in two weeks. There was a genuine concern amongst the opposition about both the accuracy of the VLs and the issuing of passports and use of Form-9. Some where concerned voters could be on both additional VLs as regular ones, thus have the possibility to vote twice (although the PECs should stamp the voter's passport when voting). Others claimed additional passports were being printed and others again that there were too many voters using Form-9 as ID. In AoR there had been plenty of applications to be transferred to an additional VL. In the community Avan alone, with only 19 PSs, there had been as many as 1842 applications. 280 of these had applied on the last day before the deadline, one week before E-day. Many of the applications came from voters who were registered on addresses in other parts of Yerevan. One might argue that it is strange that so many people chose to stand in line in the OVIRs before the elections to be able to vote close to their residence instead of just going to the PS they belong to according to the regular VL. However, the samples of applications the LTO saw, looked genuine and the signatures on the application and in the copy of the passports were identical. On E-day, the Ter-Petrossian campaign in Avan expressed concern that there was an extensive use of Form-9 10. The opposition connected this with information they had about local authorities going door to door to collect passport numbers and check who would be voting or at least be in the area of the PS and who would be away. Thus, they claimed, other people could easily vote in their place, this happened particularly in one 10 The opposition connected this with information they had about local authorities going door to door to collect passport numbers and check who would be voting or at least be in the area of the PS and who would be away. Thus, they claimed, other people could easily vote in their place.
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 8 special PS. The STO team which observed in that PS reported on at least 17 voters having used Form-9 as ID, seven they had witnessed themselves during the time they were in the PS, in addition the PEC chairperson confirmed that at least ten voters had used this form before the observers arrived. At the same time, The LTO team went to the OVIR in Avan, where they were told that only 20 Form-9s had been issued in Avan (at 18:00 on E-day), and none of them were issued for voters belonging to that particular PS, PS 1/7. The LTOs also received information that there was extensive use of Form-9s in other PSs in Avan, as well. The Form-9s could easily be falsified with a printer and a false stamp, as they are just an A4 sized paper with stamp, picture and signature and do not have all the safety precautions that a regular passport has. It should also be mentioned, that one PEC in Avan confirmed that at least one voter had been rejected when he turned up with a regular passport, because there had been a person with a Form- 9, voting in his place. To make matters more complicated, the Form-9s have no special serial numbers, only the number of the passport it is replacing, and that there are no place for marking in the VL that such form has been used. Thus, it is impossible to trace how many voters have actually used a Form-9 as ID on E-day. Candidate registration Before the deadline for nominating presidential candidates expired on 6 December 2007, nine prospective candidates had submitted complete registration documents. All nine nominees were registered (for list of presidential candidates, see "Political Context"). Presidential candidates must be at least 35 years of age, have permanently resided in Armenia the last 10 years and can not hold a dual citizenship. Candidates can be either nominated by political parties or self-nominees. In the presidential elections 2008 two self-nominees participated (Levon Ter-Petrossian and Aram Melikyan), the seven others were nominated from parties. After amendments of the election code in 2007, there are no requirements for supporting signatures, however the electoral deposit for the candidates have been raised to the amount of 8000 times the minimum wage (i.e. 8 million AMD - app. 17 000 Euros). The deposit is refunded if the candidate receives more than 5% of the votes cast. The Election campaign In the EOM's statement of preliminary findings and conclusions one of the positive aspects mentioned is that "candidates could freely present their views at public meetings and actively campaigned". However, only Serzh Sargsyan, Levon Ter-Petrossian and Vahan Hovhannisyan conducted a nation-wide campaign. In the LTO's AoR also Artur Baghdasaryan was campaigning actively. The other candidates' campaigning ranged from not visible at all to insignificant. The three LTO teams deployed to Yerevan co-operated in covering the election campaign in the capital. The biggest rallies were held at the Freedom Square in front of
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 9 the opera house in the centre of the city. Except one small meeting with the candidate Artashes Geghamyan, the LTO followed rallies of Artur Baghdasaryan, Serzh Sargsyan and Levon Ter-Petrossian, and also parts of the post-election protest arranged by the latter candidate. The LTO reported on Artur Baghdasaryan's rallies both from the Freedom square where thousands of listeners had turned up, but due to an extensive amount of introductory speakers and cold weather, quite many attendants had left when Baghdasaryan himself finally came on stage. When he at last took the stage, he claimed that he had received death threats and that he would hold the authorities responsible if anything should happen to him. He had another meeting in a meeting hall in the governmental building, addressing members of the Orinats Yerkir Women's Organisation. The main topic was women's situation in the Armenian society and how to improve it. This meeting differed from other meetings in the huge number of female attendants. In rallies held by both Baghdasaryan and Ter-Petrossian women were hugely underrepresented. It was a whole different deal with Serzh Sargsyan in this matter. In Sargsyan's preelection rallies in Nor-Nork and Avan, there were almost 50% women attending. Even though the rallies were organised on a weekday and within working hours, thousands of public employees turned up to listen to the prospective president. There is a high percentage of women working in the public sector, especially as teachers. Not only teachers, but quite a high number of pupils attended the Sargsyan rallies. Many pupils were holding campaign flags and banners for Sargsyan, and they informed the LTO team that they had received the material from the school administration, others said "some people came to our school and distributed them there". The LTO received information from very reliable sources that many public employees were going to Serzh Sargsyan's rallies under threats that if they did not show up they could lose their jobs. This was especially prominent in Sargsyan's grand finale at the Freedom Square, which gathered a crowd of hundreds of thousands on the last day of the campaign and in the post-election "victory celebration" (which by many was perceived as a counter measure against the massive Ter-Petrossian protests) at the Republic Square. Sargsyan's rallies differed from the other candidates' rallies also in the way the message was presented. Serzh Sargsyan himself was the only speaker in his rallies, talking for twenty minutes or so, while both Baghdasaryan and Ter-Petrossian had numerous guest speakers. This was especially the case with Levon Ter-Petrossian, who beside an enthusiastic moderator had up to ten introductory speakers before he himself took the microphone. Sargsyan's rallies were more characterised by showmanship as popular singers usually played a substantial part in the events. Already at the start of the campaign it was apparent that the elections would be a duel between Serzh Sargsyan and Levon Ter-Petrossian. The two rivals also had the ability to attract big crowds, and participants came from all over the country for their rallies. Ter- Petrossian or his co-speakers often attacked the policy of Sargsyan harshly and came with rather derogatory characteristics on politicians and oligarchs supporting the PM. However, one could not characterise his speeches as directly inflammatory. The Ter- Petrossian supporters seemed very committed and many thousands also joined in the marches which usually took place after the rally. The marches in the central streets of Yerevan were not sanctioned by the city authorities, but they proceeded orderly and without interference of police. Levon Ter-Petrossian's last rally before election silence were held at the Freedom Square and attracted the biggest crowd in the pre-election campaign that far. From stage it was
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 10 announced that 300 000 people were gathered, however, 100 000 would probably be a more sober estimate. The rally lasted more than four hours and included a long march through downtown Yerevan, before it reassumed at the Freedom Square again. In the speeches, the moderator, guest speakers and Levon Ter-Petrossian himself, claimed that "we have already won" and announced that "we'll all meet on 20 February (the day after E-day) and celebrate our victory!". Further, Ter-Petrossian added that "if the authorities falsify the results and declare Sargsyan as winner, our meeting will still take place and we'll use all legal means to protect our rights and demand a recount. Nobody will go home until they have done the recount and declared our victory!" Thus, the massive post-election demonstrations seemed inevitable. The unsanctioned post-election rallies at the Freedom Square continued day and night for nine days. It was joined by thousands of people, and after Artur Baghdasaryan made a deal with Serzh Sargsyan, many members of Orinats Yerkir also joined the protests. A big amount of tents were put up for the people, there were bonfires and music and occasional dances. The political message in the speeches was clear; "we will fight until the end". The state authorities were harshly characterised as corrupt and betrayers of the people. However, the organisers always encouraged peaceful and orderly protests. The protest did not only attract political activists, some of the attendants seemed just to go there to check out the big happening in Yerevan at the moment. The campaign head quarters (HQs) of the major candidates were quite busy with campaign activities on "ground level"; putting up posters, doing door-to-door-campaign, distributing leaflets etc. The Levon Ter-Petrossian campaign also distributed a big amount of DVDs of their candidate's speeches, since they felt that the coverage of his campaign was poor, or even misleading. The big billboards in Yerevan were almost exclusively covered with Sargsyan's familiar face. In the LTOs AoR only two-three billboards of Artur Baghdasaryan were observed besides Sargsyan s. When it comes to posters the most active candidates were Dashnaktsutiun s Vahan Hovhannisyan and of course the omnipresent Sargsyan. However, the locations of the posters differed radically from each other. While the Hovhannisyan posters where mostly posted in unauthorised places on private buildings, the Sargsyan posters were located in the windows of private enterprises. Even though, the local communities were supposed to arrange special, authorised locations for campaign posters, in the LTO's AoR it was only in the community of Avan the campaigners used this option systematically. Throughout Yerevan there was abundant with campaign offices. Especially the Sargsyan campaign had a big representation, in certain areas almost one office per PS, i.e. one office for 1500-2000 voters. The Levon Ter-Petrossian complained that they had problems getting offices, mainly because of what they claimed was intimidation from local authorities directed at the house owners. This was particularly a problem in Avan community, where they only had one office. The campaign offices were the starting points of door-to-door-campaigns. During one of these campaigns, in Nor-Nork, three young activists for the Ter-Petrossian campaign were attacked, beaten and threatened. However, the police did not investigate the case as a breach of the freedom to campaign, but only as a brawl or breach of public order. Several of the Ter-Petrossian campaigners complained about persecutions from the police and some interlocutors told about long interrogations at local police stations. Some of the Chiefs of Police, with whom the LTO met, openly expressed the view that it
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 11 was only Levon Ter-Petrossian's adherents who caused them difficulties and broke rules of the campaign. One high ranking officer even ended the interview by quoting Sargsyan slogans. The Media The most important source of political information in Armenia is TV and there are around 60 television channels in the country. The public-service broadcaster H1 is the by far the most significant. There are approximately 20 radio companies, but, with the exception of Public Radio and RFE/Radio Liberty, they are mainly broadcasting entertainment programmes. The more than 100 print media publications have only limited distribution outside of Yerevan. OSCE s Representative on Freedom on the Media stated in 2006 that broadcast media can be described as predominantly pro-government [and] all members of the regulatory bodies are directly appointed by the President of Armenia. 11 The representative adds that the lack of pluralism in broadcasting is a major problem, and further that even though Armenia has made significant progress in improving media legislation, [ ] media pluralism remains limited to the independent, but financially weak and less influential, print media. 12 None of the print outlets exceeds a circulation of 3-4000 copies. In the pre-election campaign the OSCE/ODIHR EOM monitored the following TV channels: The public-service broadcaster H1, ALM TV, Armenia TV, H2 all nationwide and the Yerevan based Kentron TV, Shant TV and Yerkir Media, which have a limited coverage outside Yerevan. In addition, Public Radio and RFE/Radio Liberty were monitored, as well as the print media Hayastani Hanrapetutyun (Statefunded), Aravot, AZG, and Haykakan Zhamanak. The presidential candidates were provided up to one hour free airtime on H1 and up to two hours on Public Radio to convey their messages. Even though this was complied to, H1 was criticised because many of both the free and paid spots were broadcasted outside TV's prime time. 13 The EOM's media monitoring found that "most of the broadcast media including public television demonstrated a clear imbalance in the coverage of the prospective candidates" 14 and that "the coverage of Levon Ter-Petrossian in various broadcast media contained many critical remarks, while the other eight candidates were presented in a generally positive or neutral manner". 15 11 http://www.osce.org/documents/rfm/2006/07/20007_en.pdf 12 http://www.osce.org/documents/rfm/2006/07/20007_en.pdf 13 http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/02/29775_en.pdf 14 http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/01/29521_en.pdf 15 http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/02/29678_en.pdf
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 12 Observation on the Polling Day Observation in Yerevan, by LTO Kenneth de Figueiredo The LTO's AoR comprised five TECs; TEC 1-4 and 10. They were located in six communities in central and north-eastern Yerevan; Avan, Nor-Nork, Qanaqer-Zeitun, Arabkir, Kentron and Nork-Marash. On E-day the LTO team was co-ordinating five regular STO teams, five so-called TEC-teams, one CEC team and seven teams of parliamentarians. The regular STO teams observed PSs from the opening, through polling, closing and counting. They then followed the PEC to the TEC where they handed over a copy of the protocol to the TEC team and their observation was finished. The TEC teams started to work later in the day and followed polling in some PSs, when the PSs closed they did not follow the count in a PS, but instead headed for a TEC where they observed the aggregation of results. The TECs had 32-35 PSs each and the TEC teams stayed in the TECs until all the results were aggregated. The CEC worked similar to the TEC teams, but on election night they went to observe in the CEC. Once in the CEC they stopped reporting to the LTO team, but reported directly to the election analyst instead. The parliamentarians received briefing material from the LTOs, observed as regular STOs, but reported more on an ad hoc basis to the LTO team. The EOM in Armenia also conducted an observation on the PECs' procedures on the day before E-day. Observation of the opening Three out of five regular STO teams opened the PS they had observed the day before and found all the election material intact (i.e. in the state they were when they were put in the safe and sealed). All teams found opening procedures to be followed. All materials had been received. Proxies were present from the opening. In one PS ballots and envelopes had not been put in stacks of hundreds as prescribed. Observation of the polling The polling was generally assessed as positive by the STOs. Orderly and well-organised were adjectives frequently used by them. The LTO received many allegations from the opposition that bussing of Serzh Sargsyan voters were taking place. And buses and several taxis with Sargsyan flags were observed by the STO teams. One STO team, in Avan, got confirmation that the taxis were working for free, driving voters to PSs. It should be mentioned that the taxi company in question is owned by the head of community and leader of the local chapter of the Republican Party. However, the STOs did not report on bussing in the traditional sense; buses taking the same voters to vote in more than one PS. Two out of twelve teams (all teams save the parliamentarians, but including the LTO team itself) saw a supplementary list with entries, but no observation of actual registering. One team was told by PEC that three-four people had been sent away since their names were not found in the VL. They were, however, expected to return with court decision to register on supplementary list. Two teams in three different PSs saw voters turned away for not being on the VL. An STO team in Avan had reports from proxies that groups of people were registered on VL at addresses no longer existing
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 13 (houses demolished) (LTOs had similar reports in post-election days from an Orinats Yerkir member of PEC in Kentron). Military voting was observed by five out of eleven teams. Two teams, in TEC 1 and TEC 4, saw military voting done with the regular VL and not a special military VL. Four out of eleven teams visited PSs with mobile voting, but only teams TEC 2 and TEC 10 followed (part of) a mobile voting. One team reported on undue influence on the voter, by a doctor in one of the hospitals. No teams observed the procedures for mobile voting returning to PS. In one PS in TEC 1, seven instances of Form-9 used as ID were observed. The same team saw voters turned away because someone had already signed the VL in their place (see "Voter Registration"). Only four teams met proxies from other candidates than Serzh Sargsyan and Levon Ter- Petrossian. Seven teams observed more than one proxy from a candidate inside a PS (Sargsyan s and Levon Ter-Petrossian s). Proxies taking part in PEC duties were observed by six teams, only one instance by a proxy other Sargsyan s and Ter- Petrossian s. Three instances were considered as serious violations, especially one instance observed in TEC 1, where former TEC chair was proxy for Sargsyan and interfering. There were observed several cases where proxies activities, such as taking photos, caused tension. Three teams, in TEC 1, 2 and 3, observed groups of unauthorized people; proxies or activists, around entry or in PSs seeming to try to exert influence/intimidation on voters (one instance was identified as Ter-Petrossian's supporters' activity, the rest as Sargsyan supporters). Two teams, in TEC 1 and TEC 10, observed a cameraman filming the whole voting process including all the voters. PEC chair in both cases informed that this was on his initiative. Violence against proxies from the opposition was reported to the LTOs by the Ter- Petrossian campaign in Arabkir community. But when the closest STO team arrived the alleged scene, there was nothing to report about. However, the core team had visits from the persons in question who arrived the HQ in a beaten state. Also a domestic observer was assaulted and lost consciousness (see annex, Interim Report 3). Observation of the closing and counting All five regular teams which observed the counting describe the atmosphere as good and friendly. However, the STOs used words as slow, chaotic, complex, problematic, frictional, and not transparent when describing the process. The count observed in TEC 10 was even described as manipulative, conspiratorial and fraudulent. Four teams observed disagreements over decision valid/invalid ballots and other issues. One team, in Nor-Nork, observed transport to TEC without police escort. Observation of the tabulation The TEC teams generally evaluated the tabulation process positively. The process was transparent and the observers were well received. The TEC teams reported that there were two formal complaints in TEC 1, two in TEC 2 (which were immediately referred to CEC) none in TEC 3, three in TEC 4, and in TEC 10 not known.
Armenia: Presidential Elections 2008 14 Observation in Armavir, by LTO Toril Lund Armavir marz is situated on an agricultural plane which stretches some 70 km westwards starting from the outskirts of Yerevan. The 1200 sq km plane hosts 300.000 people, most of them living in rural villages making their living from farming. It shares a 130 km borderline with Turkey, but the border is closed and, as Armenia is a close ally of Russia, it is guarded by the Russian FSS (Federal Security Services) which have approximately 37% Armenians in their ranks. Since 2005 FSS have also guarded Yerevan (Zvartnots) airport. At least two villages are exclusively inhabited by the ethnic minority group Yessidis. They are considered to be non-religious in this very old Christian religious area, but no religious based tension was observed. Armavir marz and the city of Echmiadsin seem to play a special role when it comes to the army in general and the Karabakh-conflict in particular. Two out of six former and present deputy defence ministers are from Echmiadsin, two out of five army divisions are being commanded by Echmiadsin officers. In the war over Mountainous Karabakh the people from Armavir marz had the comparatively highest numbers of fighters against the Azeris. Many of them became generals and links between this military background and present rich clans with a heavy influence on national politics could be observed in AoR. The e-day observations are based upon a summary of reports from the 11 STO teams in AoR and the LTO observations: Observation of the opening The opening procedures took place in an orderly manner. No queues or crowds of people observed when the polling started. Observation of the polling The picture with regards to the voting was far more mixed. Especially the many overcrowded polling stations put a question mark on the secrecy of voters. Four STO teams reported that there was a crowd of people inside the PECs and people were standing too close to the polling booths. Two STO teams and LTOs reported on tension inside the PEC during voting due to crowds and people who were yelling. However, no intimidation inside PEC was reported. Crowds outside PECs were observed by most STO teams and LTOs throughout the day: In some places many people gathered, some of them obviously campaigned for Serzh Sargsyan with flags on cars. Two teams found that some PECs looked as if a party was going on. The LTOs later confirmed with additional sources besides the STOs that one PEC chairman was drunk. The turnout in this PEC was 99, 82%. One STO team reported on an unfriendly attitude towards the STOs during the observation of voting as well as during the counting. Observation of the closing and counting The STOs reported that closing and counting procedures went smoothly. PEC and TEC members were skilful and they knew the procedures well. One STO TEC team reported