... In case of the nomination of the president of the republic as a presidential candidate, or according to the Constitution, the acting president of the republic - the chairman of the National Assembly or the prime minister – he continues the implementation of their powers, however must not use the advantages of their official position. This article is very specific and imperative. Imperative articles are not subject to interpretation. The incumbent prime minister could be nominated and registered only under one circumstance – if he had the status of the acting president. The incumbent prime minister does not have this status. I consider that his registration was from the very beginning unlawful, and therefore illegitimate.

Secondly, under Article 53.1 of the Constitution, elections of the republic’s president are not held in the martial state or state of emergency and the republic’s president continues the implementation of his duties. The elections of the president means the whole electoral process – beginning from the registration to the end of the term set for protesting [the election outcome] – that is the verdict of the Constitutional Court. At this moment, we are in the process of elections. Therefore, since it is the state of emergency now, these elections cannot be considered either valid or lawful.

Thirdly, the fact of the unilateral coverage of the Constitutional Court’s proceedings is unclear. The plaintiff does not have the opportunity to provide coverage of the course of the Constitutional Court proceedings. The principle of equality is broken. Besides, many of the witnesses required in the course of the proceedings, who are supporters of our movement and activists of my campaign headquarters, are under arrest. These are our key witnesses. Therefore, under the circumstances, any verdict of the Constitutional Court, besides recognizing the elections as null and void, will cause a shortage of legitimacy, which is dangerous for the future of the country, and for the prestige of the Constitutional Court. I cannot imagine how any verdict arrived at by the Constitutional Court in these conditions will be accepted by me, the plaintiff, the people and the international community. That is, the state of having illegitimate authorities will always hang over the head of the Republic of Armenia. I consider as a way-out the proposals in yesterday’s statement of the European Union presidency, which I will present to you and will ask you to attach to the case. I fully accept these proposals, considering them to be the program, platform of our manner of action during this meeting of the Constitutional Court.

They are the following points:

To end the state of emergency, release all arrested people, provide equal information opportunities, to conduct an international independent investigation of the March 1 events and start a dialogue with the authorities.

I accept all these points, as I said, I consider it to be the basis for our activities.

Thank you for attention.

... In less than twenty-four hours after martial law was declared, armed forces littered the streets in military vehicles. In one particular incident, ZOMO commandos killed nine people while dispersing a peaceful protest. Public assembly was prohibited and the media placed under military control.

Armenia, 2008

On March 1, 2008 the Republic of Armenia declared martial law in an attempt to crush the peaceful political opposition movement that had taken shape in the country. While the Armenian Constitution does not specify that such powers are intended to apply during wartime only, it most definitely can be construed in such a manner to make its imposition in this particular case unconstitutional. Dozens of people were arrested, at least 8 killed, and hundreds injured in the government-instigated violence that ensued throughout the day of March 1, 2008. A number of peaceful opposition leaders were detained (and continue to remain in custody). In fact, some Parliamentarians even discussed lifting immunity from those members of parliament who had joined ranks with the opposition. In less than twenty-four hours after martial law was declared, armed forces littered the streets in military vehicles. In one particular incident, military commandos and riot police killed at least seven people while dispersing a peaceful protest. Public assembly has been prohibited and the media severely censored.


Recently Foreign Minister Oskanian commented that the ball was in Levon Ter-Petrossian’s court. I must respectfully disagree. The ball has always been in the State’s court, and how it chooses to play with it will determine whether Armenia will become a hypocrisy, or a true democracy.

...

A number of undersigned organizations observed the elections during the voting day as well as the process prior and post February 19. The instances of violations are numerous and are documented in our reports.

We are particularly concerned with the Freedom of Media/Access to Media, Violence, Corruption and Use of Administrative Resources, Arrests of Public Figures.

One of the main points that the OSCE/ODHIR observation mission made in its interim report concerned the need to establish public trust in the electoral process. Deep rooted mistrust and often-referred-to public apathy is nothing else but self-preservation reaction of the Armenian people vs. the atmosphere of impunity for those who perpetrated electoral fraud in all past elections. The processes taking place after the elections are alarming and will definitely deepen the public distrust.


We believe that as long as electoral fraud goes uninvestigated and unpunished, there will be no trust in the process and in the legal and judicial system.


We believe that only through open and widely inclusive public discussion over the above stated problems and violations it is possible to foster the atmosphere of trust and public confidence.


In view of the above, we state that this election was not held in correspondence with our understanding of democratic values and practices.


We believe that the way the authorities handle the fraud will be indicative of the honest determination to abide by the rules of democratic free and fair elections.

We call upon the Armenian government to stop politically motivated detentions. These are not calls for impunity, but a call for the government to set the example for the Armenian people and to act within the law.


We call upon the international community to see through the commitment of the Armenian government to comply with the procedure and to require documentation of proper investigation and due punishment of those who violated the law.


We call upon the international community to make objective conclusions based on their own findings and not to discredit the notion of democracy, democratic standards and principles, as well as the international organizations carrying out an observation mission.


Signatories



“Asparez” Journalists’ Club


Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression


Helsinki Committee of Armenia


Helsinki Citizens Assembly Vanadzor Branch


“Internews-Armenia” Media Support NGO


Media Diversity Institute


Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation-Armenia


Transparency International Anti-corruption Center


Yerevan Press Club

... Zinavor Ghukasyan
Date of appointment: 2003, by President Kocharyan

7. Hrant Nazaryan
Date of appointment: 1996, by President Ter-Petrosyan

8. Rafael Papayan
Date of appointment: 1997, by, probably, President Ter-Petrosyan

9. Valeri Poghosyan
Date of appointment: 1996, by, probably, Ter-Petrosyan.

Source: Constitutional Court of Armenia, official website, accessed on February 25, 2008. <http://www.concourt.am/armenian/structure/members/index.htm>

In another posting, I will present a summary of two CC decisions regarding Presidential Elections of 1996, and 2003.

...

Today, the faith of democratic development in Armenia rests in the hands of five men (nine, to be exact, but five of whom can carry the day). If the Constitutional Court does indeed find the elections of February 19, 2008 null and void, it will have succeeded in much more than overturning a particular fraudulently conducted presidential election. It will establish a precedent giving the Court the authority to challenge the Executive, and thus will successfully take a step in the right direction in terms of developing democratic governance standards.

Armenia has lagged so far in achieving the democratic ideals to which its Constitution purports to aspire precisely because it has failed in establishing an effective balance of powers. The judiciary has for the most part been subject to the Executive’s will. It would take some stretch of the imagination to argue that the courts have adequately challenged the excessive power exercised by the executive. For once, that can be changed in a dramatic way, giving the Constitutional Court the functional legitimacy to carry out its duties promised in theory.

Quite simply, the Constitutional Court’s decision has the potential to set a legal precedent tantamount to the Marshall court; a step forward few countries in the post-soviet bloc can claim. Five men will be the judge.

... Of the remaining candidates, approximately fifty percent passed the exam with successful candidates equally divided between the two specializations. The exam lasted six hours and was computer-scored. The results were posted at the office of the Chamber of Advocates in Yerevan. To be fully licensed, each successful candidate must also complete an oral exam to be held in September.

...5 percent, according to official tallies.

In nine cases documented by Human Rights Watch, assailants intimidated, threatened, and even violently attacked opposition party activists, domestic observers and journalists at eight polling stations in and around the capital, Yerevan. Victims variously described their assailants as big guys, athletic, tough, and apparently supporters of Sargsian. Most victims had been attempting to expose what they believed to be violations of electoral rules, such as incorrect voters’ lists, intimidation of voters, violations of the right to a secret ballot, and ballot-box stuffing. None of the victims was able or willing to return to the polling station to continue observing the voting.

In several incidents, the assaults took place in the presence of police and polling station officials who did not intervene, and in one case a police officer appeared to assist the assailants. Some victims reported the attacks to police, who are investigating.

Human Rights Watch called on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to look into election-related violence and ensure that its final report on the vote records these incidents.

In one case documented by Human Rights Watch, assailants grabbed a Ter-Petrosian proxy (a candidate’s authorized representative) at a polling station in Yerevan, forced her into a car and drove her to a remote area. There, they beat her in the head and face, threatened to rape her and attack her family, and abandoned her. She eventually made her way to a police station where she filed a complaint. She is still suffering from headaches and other medical repercussions of the attack.

At least three journalists were attacked. Lusine Barsegian of the newspaper Haikakan Zhamankak was beaten, and had her camera and voice recorder stolen, when she attempted to document what she believed to be intimidation of voters at a polling station in Yerevan’s Erebuni district. A cameraman from the independent A1+ television station was beaten and had his camera taken at the same polling station. Two domestic election observers, Armen Matirosian, a member of parliament from the opposition Heritage party, and Zarui Postandjian, an observer from a nongovernmental organization, were also attacked at this polling station after they tried to raise alleged election violations with polling station officials.

The OSCE election monitors stated that the elections were held mostly in line with international commitments.

Tens of thousands of Ter-Petrosian supporters took to the streets in downtown Yerevan on February 20 and 21 to protest the outcome of the elections and what they believe to be widespread electoral fraud.

The Armenian authorities should ensure that no harm is done to peaceful demonstrators, said Cartner. Armenia claims to be a democratic country, and that means allowing people to exercise their right to freedom of assembly.

Armenia has a history of flawed elections and harassment of opposition parties. In March 2003, Human Rights Watch documented widespread ballot stuffing and intimidation during Armenias presidential election runoff. Human Rights Watch documented mass arrests of opposition supporters, violent dispersals of demonstrations, and raids on opposition party headquarters in April 2004. The protests derived from the governments failure to address the many violations of electoral rules documented in the 2003 presidential election.

Details of Assaults

Yerevan
Polling station 13/16
Lusine Barsegian, a journalist for Haikakan Zhamankak told Human Rights Watch she went to polling station 13/16 in the Erebuni district of Yerevan at approximately 2 p.m. on February 19. When she arrived, she saw that the polling station was very overcrowded. Some unidentified people were talking to voters in what she believed to be an attempt to influence their votes, and other people were observing the voters closely as they cast their ballots. Barsegian attempted to interview the central election commission representative responsible for the polling station about the apparent violations. At that point, policemen and a few unidentified men forced her out of the polling station. Barsegian protested, saying, I have the right to be here. I have the right to take photographs.

With the assistance of Armen Matirosian, a member of parliament from the Heritage party, who was an authorized election observer, Barsegian again entered to the polling station. When she again attempted to take photographs, an unidentified man in plainclothes kicked her in the stomach and grabbed her camera and voice recorder. Other men also punched and kicked Matirosian. According to Barsegian, police stood by and did not intervene. After this attack, Barsegian and Matirosian fled the station and filed a complaint with the prosecutors office.

When Zarui Postandjian, an observer from the nongovernmental organization Against State Violence, heard about the incident, she went to polling station 13/16. Upon arriving, she saw a severely overcrowded polling station and police and unidentified people observing voters as they marked their ballots. Postandjian has stated that she tried to take photos of the polling station when a policeman came up from behind her and hit her. At the same time, an unidentified man tried to grab her camera, and both he and the policeman punched her. Another observer came to assist her, and they both fled. Postandjian did not return to the polling station. Postandjian filed a complaint with the prosecutors office, which opened a criminal investigation.

Arabkir district
Reuben Armanian, a proxy for Ter-Petrosian, went to polling station 4/26 in Arabkir at approximately 7:30 p.m. to replace some of his colleagues who had been observing the conduct of the voting during the day. He told Human Rights Watch that when he arrived, a group of 40 to 50 athletic-looking men were standing in and near the polling station. Approximately 10 of these men attacked Armanian, punching him on the head and body. What could I do but look for a way to escape them? Armanian told Human Rights Watch. I ran 10-20 meters and no one followed me. But I couldnt return to the polling station because these guys were still there. Photos, obtained by Human Rights Watch, of Armanian two days after the attack show him with a severely black and swollen right eye.

Human Rights Watch also received reports that at least two other proxies and observers were attacked at polling stations in Arabkir. One victim was too afraid to speak to Human Rights Watch out of fear of repercussions.

Kentron district
Hovsep Hovsepian, a cameraman with the independent A1+ television station heard about election violations at polling station 9/6 in the Kentron district of Yerevan. Hovsepian told Human Rights Watch that when he got out of his car at the polling station, a large group of unidentified men who had gathered outside the polling station attacked him and attempted to take his camera. When Hovsepian resisted, one of the men kicked him in the stomach and grabbed the camera. The assailants took the video cassette out of the camera, smashed it, and prepared to destroy the camera as well. At that moment, the driver of the car came out and the men began to attack him instead. Hovsepian and the driver broke free of the attackers, returned to the car and left the polling station.

Unidentified district #1
An opposition party proxy who did not want to be identified out of concerns for his safety told Human Rights Watch that at a polling station in one Yerevan district he saw violations of election regulations and asked that the election commission officials respond. After a few minutes, a group of 15 to 20 people attacked him, punching and kicking him until he lost consciousness. He was then taken to the hospital in an ambulance. He suffered broken ribs and pain in his kidneys as a result of the beating.

Unidentified district #2
One Ter-Petrosian supporter who asked not to be identified also described to Human Rights Watch how assailants removed him from a polling station, forced him into a car and drove him away. At a location unknown to the victim, a large group of men beat him severely in the head and body, saying that they were beating him because of his support of the opposition. As a result, the victim suffered several broken ribs.

Abovian, about 20 kilometers from Yerevan
Larissa Tarosian, a proxy for Ter-Petrosian, has told Human Rights Watch that she went to polling station 28/7 in Abovian at approximately 7:30 a.m. Three large, athletic men approached her, and two of them dragged her out of the polling station. Tarosian struggled to free herself, but was dragged across the yard and shoved into a car. The three men drove Tarosian to a deserted area outside the town. After taking her out of the car, one man beat her on the head and face. They told me that I should be silent and not say anything more about the elections, she told Human Rights Watch. They threatened to rape me. They threatened to harm my family. The men then left Tarosian in the deserted area and drove away.

Tarosian was unable to return to the polling station because of her condition. She went directly to the police, who ordered a forensic medical examination. Two days after the attack, she complained of headaches, dizziness, and other medical problems.

Gurgen Eghizarian, a proxy for Ter-Petrosian and a former deputy head of the National Security Service, received information that election observers at polling station 28/6 in Abovian had been kidnapped and beaten. He has stated that he went to the polling station together with Erjan Abgarian, a 68-year-old Ter-Petrosian proxy and former head of the customs service. Election commission representatives and observers there denied that they had seen anything happen to the observers, but Eghizarian demanded that the senior election commission representative sign a statement about what had happened. While at the polling station, a group of seven or eight men armed with pistols attacked Eghizarian, his son, and Abgarian, beating them on the kidneys, ribs, and back. Eghizarian told Human Rights Watch that the men also threatened him and the others saying, Sargsian will be president, and if you go against him, you will be killed. He suffers headaches and has a bruise on his forehead as a result of the assault.

A senior official for Ter-Petrosian told Human Rights Watch that at least three other proxies were beaten in Abovian on election day.

Another Ter-Petrosian proxy who wished to remain anonymous told Human Rights Watch that large, athletic men would arrive periodically at another polling station in Abovian and would take prospective voters aside for a little chat, apparently in order to influence their votes. These same men also spoke to election commission officials, observers, and candidates proxies, and threatened them should they speak out about any violations. This same proxy told Human Rights Watch that in mid-afternoon some men took him aside and threatened him and told him, You didnt see anything. He claimed that these men were responsible for stealing and falsifying ballots and stuffing the ballot box at this polling station. Police stood by and did not respond. This proxy stated that he continued to fear for his safety and had sent his children to another location and was reluctant to leave his own apartment.

...

In particular, they cited examples of what they consider violations of legal provisions obligating Public Television to be impartial in its news coverage. One of them, Artak Zeynalian, said the Ter-Petrosian complained to the regulatory National Commission on Television and Radio (NCTR) but never received a reply.

In its verdict read out by Harutiunian, the Constitutional Court ruled that the alleged obstacles are not serious enough to be considered insurmountable. At the same time the court said after four-hour deliberations that Ter-Petrosian’s complaints are “legitimate” and should be addressed by the NCTR, the Central Election Commission and lower-level courts. It warned that their failure to do so could “generate distrust in the election process.”