Tweet
A1plus
| 12:01:26 | 20-06-2005 | Politics |
THE FIRST NEGATIVE OPINION
After midnight the preliminary conclusions of the working group consisting
of 11 observers from Greece, Croatia, and Czech Republic were announced. The
ideas were different: the representatives of Croatia and Greece evaluated
the elections positive mentioning several unimportant violations, whereas
the representative of Czech Republic was of a completely different opinion.
The representative of the Czech Republic, chief editor of the newspaper
`Czech Republic', independent lawyer Milan Stefanec announced that he cannot
make an idea about the fairness of the elections on the whole territory of
Karabakh, but if what he has seen took place in the majority of the
electoral areas, `it will be very difficult to call the elections democratic
and fair'.
The lawyer, who has also been in the OSCE Observers Mission to Azerbaijan
and Belarus, substantiated his opinion with the following facts, `Before
throwing the ballots into the boxes, the electors in Askeran showed whom
they had votes for. The empowered person of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation wanted to complain, but the Committee head refused to admit it
saying that nothing of the kind had happened'.
Milan Stefanec also mentioned other violations, «In an electoral area in
Martakert the validity or invalidity of the documents was decided not by the
Committee head, but by the Military Commander». He added that the members of
the Electoral Committee had no idea of the Electoral Code, «When we asked
them who forms the Electoral Committee, they could no answer. They did not
know who had appointed them. These things are menace for democratic
elections».
When the journalists asked how the diversity of the opinions of the
observers is accounted for, they answered that they have realized the
observation is different electoral areas, and besides, their different
evaluations are the testimony to their independence from one another.
Let us also mention that the Central Electoral Committee did not announce
the preliminary results of the elections in due time. The reason for that
was the delay of the protocols from the electoral areas.
ANNA ISRAYELYAN
Correspondent of `Aravot' especially for `A1+'
| 12:01:26 | 20-06-2005 | Politics |
THE FIRST NEGATIVE OPINION
After midnight the preliminary conclusions of the working group consisting
of 11 observers from Greece, Croatia, and Czech Republic were announced. The
ideas were different: the representatives of Croatia and Greece evaluated
the elections positive mentioning several unimportant violations, whereas
the representative of Czech Republic was of a completely different opinion.
The representative of the Czech Republic, chief editor of the newspaper
`Czech Republic', independent lawyer Milan Stefanec announced that he cannot
make an idea about the fairness of the elections on the whole territory of
Karabakh, but if what he has seen took place in the majority of the
electoral areas, `it will be very difficult to call the elections democratic
and fair'.
The lawyer, who has also been in the OSCE Observers Mission to Azerbaijan
and Belarus, substantiated his opinion with the following facts, `Before
throwing the ballots into the boxes, the electors in Askeran showed whom
they had votes for. The empowered person of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation wanted to complain, but the Committee head refused to admit it
saying that nothing of the kind had happened'.
Milan Stefanec also mentioned other violations, «In an electoral area in
Martakert the validity or invalidity of the documents was decided not by the
Committee head, but by the Military Commander». He added that the members of
the Electoral Committee had no idea of the Electoral Code, «When we asked
them who forms the Electoral Committee, they could no answer. They did not
know who had appointed them. These things are menace for democratic
elections».
When the journalists asked how the diversity of the opinions of the
observers is accounted for, they answered that they have realized the
observation is different electoral areas, and besides, their different
evaluations are the testimony to their independence from one another.
Let us also mention that the Central Electoral Committee did not announce
the preliminary results of the elections in due time. The reason for that
was the delay of the protocols from the electoral areas.
ANNA ISRAYELYAN
Correspondent of `Aravot' especially for `A1+'