Tweet
D. Harutyunyan about PACE release. It failed on both accounts
Saturday,
January 19
The Head of Armenian Parliament delegation to PACE Mr. David
Harutyunyan commented the press release of the PACE preelectoral
delegation to Armenia.
Hereby are Mr. Harutyunyan's comments.
«I was shocked by the form and substance of the press release of the
PACE preelectoral delegation to Armenia and feel obliged to address
all three negative assessments it contains.
The first `crucial matter of concern for the delegation is the
continuing substantial inaccuracies in the voter list'.
Such negative assessment was pre cooked even before the delegation's
meeting with the main body responsible for handling the electoral
register - the Police: the written press release in English and
Armenian was distributed immediately after that
meeting.
In fact this negative assessment was copy-pasted from the notorious
report of the delegation led by Baroness Nicholson on Parliamentary
elections in Armenia in May 2012. Since we considered the allegations
of that report as fake and ignoring
any reasonable explanations rendered by the Armenian authorities,
after the Parliamentary elections of 2012 we invited PACE to undertake
a post-electoral mission in order to verify the accuracy of the
voters' lists. Unfortunately the organization did not accept our
invitation, but rather decided to continue the same path - making
unsubstantiated and false accusations on the quality of the voters'
list. Let me once again address the main `facts' which were usually
mentioned as a matter of concern.
a. The large number of passports issued in 2011-2012 is simply due to
the fact that Armenia introduced national passports two decades ago
back in 1992 with a 10- year validity period.
b. The increase of the numbers of voters by 157 thousands between two
previous national elections as opposed to the decrease of demographic
indicators is conditioned by three major factors: the large number of
those born between 1990
and 1994 turning into electoral age which is overweighting the death
rate (142 thousands for the period 2008-2012) for about 270 thousand2;
abrupt increase of number of dual citizens (43.800); and new stricter
requirements to passport holders
to indicate permanent residency address, which was not the case in the past.
Several other concerns about the voters' lists, mentioned previously,
like high number of voters registered under the same address, people
registered in demolished or earthquake damaged buildings, were
thoroughly addressed by the
authorities after the Parliamentary elections of May 2012 and are
basically resolved.
Of course for any country it is theoretically impossible to eliminate
absolutely all inaccuracies in the voters' lists. However, Armenian
authorities eliminated them to the highest extent possible. Moreover,
the legislation itself contained sufficient safeguards. Any person may
check at any time (irrespective of elections) whether he or she or any
other person is in a voters' register or not.
The voters' lists are posted for public scrutiny at polling stations
40 days before elections and they are also made available for
download on the Internet in a userfriendly format. Any person, party,
NGO or other organization have the opportunity during 35 days to
formally request the initiation of an administrative procedure to
eliminate inaccuracies. The final lists are published two days before
each election and they shall also be available for download on the
Internet.
Moreover, on January 9, 2013 the Police established a hot line for
reports on inaccuracies of the voters' lists. Until the day of
publication of the press release only 22 reports were submitted, none
of them related to the inaccuracies, but rather
requesting expert advice.
Any objective observer definitely would conclude that Armenia achieved
an outstanding progress following recommendations from the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR to compile an accurate voter register. I can
insist without any doubt that voter register of Armenia is one of the
most accurate voter registers among Council of Europe member states.
The second negative assessment:
`It is a matter of great concern, in particular given that major
political parties, which were strongly expected to present
presidential candidates, chose not to do so because of their lack of
trust in the conduct of the election' and `The delegation also noted
that, one month before the vote, the general public is lacking both
interest and confidence in the electoral process'.
This assessment was paraphrased from the previous ungrounded report of
Baroness Nicholson.
It is worth to mention that some international observers attending
recent parliamentary elections noted that there is no generalized lack
of trust towards election and this is confirmed by the unprecedented
level of participation 62.8% of the total number of eligible voters.
Comparative study of voter participation across member states of the
Council of Europe could help draw certain conclusions.
Moreover the political parties and blocks now challenging the conduct
of the elections (Prosperous Armenia, ARF, ANC) actively participated
in the parliamentary elections held in 2012 and gained seats in the
National Assembly. `Prosperous Armenia'
gained more than 30% of votes cast and is the second largest faction
of the National Assembly. ARF several times gained seats in the
parliamentary elections, including in 2012. ANC in the last
parliamentary elections gained more than 7% of votes cast.
Three presidential candidates - Hrant Bagratyan (former prime
minister, leader of the Freedom party, currently Member of the
National Assembly, represents the same ANC faction), Paruyr Hayrikyan
(former Soviet dissident, one of the founders and
most active leaders of the democratic movement in the Soviet Union)
and Raffi Hovhannisyan (former minister of foreign affairs, leader of
the Parliamentary party Heritage) are prominent public and political
figures, so these elections are as competitive as the previous
elections.
Unfortunately the delegation has either failed to check or has
preferred not to refer to the official explanations of those `expected
presidential candidates' about the reasons why they decided not to
participate. For example, the first President of Armenia, currently
the leader of the Armenian National Congress (ANC) officially
announced in December 2012 that he was not going to make another bid
to return to power in February's presidential election citing his age
as the reason for his decision.
The third negative assessment:
`There is still confusion about the right to vote for Armenians living abroad'.
Again, this idea was copy pasted from the unfair report of Baroness Nicholson.
Although this suggestion is well beyond the framework of the observer
mission, I will address it in substance. As a matter of internal
policy, Armenia has reasonably chosen to allow exercise of national
electoral rights only domestically. In no way does
this constitute a violation of the right to vote and it is within the
margin of appreciation of any state to decide on the matter. For some
reason, about which we can only guess, these facts have been
conveniently overlooked by the delegation.
The press release states: `The delegation emphasized that citizens'
trust must be restored as elections are essential for democratic
development'. At the same time the press release contains false
accusations and exaggerated concerns with fairness and proper nature
of the elections, thus affecting public trust, confidence and interest
in elections thus undermining the democratic process in Armenia.
I strongly believe that observer missions should be conducted with the
strict application of two most important principles: fairness and
factual base. Unfortunately this press release failed on both
accounts. The issue at stake is the credibility of the
PACE observation mission. It is certainly protestable when the mission
called to safeguard and support democracy in fact undermines it.
I also very much regret that this pre-electoral statement was
disseminated before any preliminary reports were published by other
observation groups, including the ODIHR team, which is functioning in
Armenia on a longer-term basis. I also find it
regretful, that the delegation has preferred not to share with the
Armenian partners the advance copy of the text before dissemination,
which is a regular practice for the electoral observation teams.
Taking into account the forthcoming electoral observer mission, I
insist that urgent attention must be paid to issue of ensuring strict
application of principles of fairness and factual base by the expected
mission in order to avoid any further recreations of the notorious
report of Baroness Nicholson».
TODAY, 23:29
Aysor.am
Saturday,
January 19
The Head of Armenian Parliament delegation to PACE Mr. David
Harutyunyan commented the press release of the PACE preelectoral
delegation to Armenia.
Hereby are Mr. Harutyunyan's comments.
«I was shocked by the form and substance of the press release of the
PACE preelectoral delegation to Armenia and feel obliged to address
all three negative assessments it contains.
The first `crucial matter of concern for the delegation is the
continuing substantial inaccuracies in the voter list'.
Such negative assessment was pre cooked even before the delegation's
meeting with the main body responsible for handling the electoral
register - the Police: the written press release in English and
Armenian was distributed immediately after that
meeting.
In fact this negative assessment was copy-pasted from the notorious
report of the delegation led by Baroness Nicholson on Parliamentary
elections in Armenia in May 2012. Since we considered the allegations
of that report as fake and ignoring
any reasonable explanations rendered by the Armenian authorities,
after the Parliamentary elections of 2012 we invited PACE to undertake
a post-electoral mission in order to verify the accuracy of the
voters' lists. Unfortunately the organization did not accept our
invitation, but rather decided to continue the same path - making
unsubstantiated and false accusations on the quality of the voters'
list. Let me once again address the main `facts' which were usually
mentioned as a matter of concern.
a. The large number of passports issued in 2011-2012 is simply due to
the fact that Armenia introduced national passports two decades ago
back in 1992 with a 10- year validity period.
b. The increase of the numbers of voters by 157 thousands between two
previous national elections as opposed to the decrease of demographic
indicators is conditioned by three major factors: the large number of
those born between 1990
and 1994 turning into electoral age which is overweighting the death
rate (142 thousands for the period 2008-2012) for about 270 thousand2;
abrupt increase of number of dual citizens (43.800); and new stricter
requirements to passport holders
to indicate permanent residency address, which was not the case in the past.
Several other concerns about the voters' lists, mentioned previously,
like high number of voters registered under the same address, people
registered in demolished or earthquake damaged buildings, were
thoroughly addressed by the
authorities after the Parliamentary elections of May 2012 and are
basically resolved.
Of course for any country it is theoretically impossible to eliminate
absolutely all inaccuracies in the voters' lists. However, Armenian
authorities eliminated them to the highest extent possible. Moreover,
the legislation itself contained sufficient safeguards. Any person may
check at any time (irrespective of elections) whether he or she or any
other person is in a voters' register or not.
The voters' lists are posted for public scrutiny at polling stations
40 days before elections and they are also made available for
download on the Internet in a userfriendly format. Any person, party,
NGO or other organization have the opportunity during 35 days to
formally request the initiation of an administrative procedure to
eliminate inaccuracies. The final lists are published two days before
each election and they shall also be available for download on the
Internet.
Moreover, on January 9, 2013 the Police established a hot line for
reports on inaccuracies of the voters' lists. Until the day of
publication of the press release only 22 reports were submitted, none
of them related to the inaccuracies, but rather
requesting expert advice.
Any objective observer definitely would conclude that Armenia achieved
an outstanding progress following recommendations from the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR to compile an accurate voter register. I can
insist without any doubt that voter register of Armenia is one of the
most accurate voter registers among Council of Europe member states.
The second negative assessment:
`It is a matter of great concern, in particular given that major
political parties, which were strongly expected to present
presidential candidates, chose not to do so because of their lack of
trust in the conduct of the election' and `The delegation also noted
that, one month before the vote, the general public is lacking both
interest and confidence in the electoral process'.
This assessment was paraphrased from the previous ungrounded report of
Baroness Nicholson.
It is worth to mention that some international observers attending
recent parliamentary elections noted that there is no generalized lack
of trust towards election and this is confirmed by the unprecedented
level of participation 62.8% of the total number of eligible voters.
Comparative study of voter participation across member states of the
Council of Europe could help draw certain conclusions.
Moreover the political parties and blocks now challenging the conduct
of the elections (Prosperous Armenia, ARF, ANC) actively participated
in the parliamentary elections held in 2012 and gained seats in the
National Assembly. `Prosperous Armenia'
gained more than 30% of votes cast and is the second largest faction
of the National Assembly. ARF several times gained seats in the
parliamentary elections, including in 2012. ANC in the last
parliamentary elections gained more than 7% of votes cast.
Three presidential candidates - Hrant Bagratyan (former prime
minister, leader of the Freedom party, currently Member of the
National Assembly, represents the same ANC faction), Paruyr Hayrikyan
(former Soviet dissident, one of the founders and
most active leaders of the democratic movement in the Soviet Union)
and Raffi Hovhannisyan (former minister of foreign affairs, leader of
the Parliamentary party Heritage) are prominent public and political
figures, so these elections are as competitive as the previous
elections.
Unfortunately the delegation has either failed to check or has
preferred not to refer to the official explanations of those `expected
presidential candidates' about the reasons why they decided not to
participate. For example, the first President of Armenia, currently
the leader of the Armenian National Congress (ANC) officially
announced in December 2012 that he was not going to make another bid
to return to power in February's presidential election citing his age
as the reason for his decision.
The third negative assessment:
`There is still confusion about the right to vote for Armenians living abroad'.
Again, this idea was copy pasted from the unfair report of Baroness Nicholson.
Although this suggestion is well beyond the framework of the observer
mission, I will address it in substance. As a matter of internal
policy, Armenia has reasonably chosen to allow exercise of national
electoral rights only domestically. In no way does
this constitute a violation of the right to vote and it is within the
margin of appreciation of any state to decide on the matter. For some
reason, about which we can only guess, these facts have been
conveniently overlooked by the delegation.
The press release states: `The delegation emphasized that citizens'
trust must be restored as elections are essential for democratic
development'. At the same time the press release contains false
accusations and exaggerated concerns with fairness and proper nature
of the elections, thus affecting public trust, confidence and interest
in elections thus undermining the democratic process in Armenia.
I strongly believe that observer missions should be conducted with the
strict application of two most important principles: fairness and
factual base. Unfortunately this press release failed on both
accounts. The issue at stake is the credibility of the
PACE observation mission. It is certainly protestable when the mission
called to safeguard and support democracy in fact undermines it.
I also very much regret that this pre-electoral statement was
disseminated before any preliminary reports were published by other
observation groups, including the ODIHR team, which is functioning in
Armenia on a longer-term basis. I also find it
regretful, that the delegation has preferred not to share with the
Armenian partners the advance copy of the text before dissemination,
which is a regular practice for the electoral observation teams.
Taking into account the forthcoming electoral observer mission, I
insist that urgent attention must be paid to issue of ensuring strict
application of principles of fairness and factual base by the expected
mission in order to avoid any further recreations of the notorious
report of Baroness Nicholson».
TODAY, 23:29
Aysor.am