Tweet
A1+
ODIHR PUBLISHES FINAL REPORT ON ARMENIA'S PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION
[04:57 pm] 30 May, 2008
The pre-election and voting period of Armenia's
presidential election was conducted in a manner that
mostly met OSCE commitments, but problems arose,
notably after the vote, the OSCE Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) said in a final
report on the February election, released today.
-While the 2008 presidential election mostly met OSCE
commitments and international standards in the
pre-election period and during voting hours, serious
challenges to some commitments did emerge, especially
after election day,- the report says.
-This displayed an insufficient regard for standards
essential to democratic elections and devalued the
overall election process. In particular, the vote
count demonstrated deficiencies of accountability and
transparency, and complaints and appeals procedures
were not fully effective.-
The ODIHR monitored the February presidential election
with 44 long-term and 250 short-term observers from
over 40 OSCE participating States. The report assesses
the electoral process for compliance with OSCE
commitments, other international standards and
national legislation.
-There is a sound legal basis for holding democratic
elections in Armenia - the deficiencies noted in our
report resulted primarily from a lack of determination
to apply existing laws and rules effectively and
impartially,- said Ambassador Christian Strohal,
Director of the ODIHR.
-Improving Armenia's electoral framework does not
require so much further technical or legal changes,
but rather a genuine commitment by the authorities at
all levels, as well as all other political
stakeholders, to a democratic electoral process free
of undue State interference and in line with OSCE
standards.-
The report makes concrete recommendations on how to
improve Armenia's election framework. These include
measures to address the lack of public confidence in
the electoral process, to ensure that all citizens are
able to cast their votes free of coercion or
intimidation, and to establish a clear separation
between State structures and the ruling party.
ODIHR PUBLISHES FINAL REPORT ON ARMENIA'S PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION
[04:57 pm] 30 May, 2008
The pre-election and voting period of Armenia's
presidential election was conducted in a manner that
mostly met OSCE commitments, but problems arose,
notably after the vote, the OSCE Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) said in a final
report on the February election, released today.
-While the 2008 presidential election mostly met OSCE
commitments and international standards in the
pre-election period and during voting hours, serious
challenges to some commitments did emerge, especially
after election day,- the report says.
-This displayed an insufficient regard for standards
essential to democratic elections and devalued the
overall election process. In particular, the vote
count demonstrated deficiencies of accountability and
transparency, and complaints and appeals procedures
were not fully effective.-
The ODIHR monitored the February presidential election
with 44 long-term and 250 short-term observers from
over 40 OSCE participating States. The report assesses
the electoral process for compliance with OSCE
commitments, other international standards and
national legislation.
-There is a sound legal basis for holding democratic
elections in Armenia - the deficiencies noted in our
report resulted primarily from a lack of determination
to apply existing laws and rules effectively and
impartially,- said Ambassador Christian Strohal,
Director of the ODIHR.
-Improving Armenia's electoral framework does not
require so much further technical or legal changes,
but rather a genuine commitment by the authorities at
all levels, as well as all other political
stakeholders, to a democratic electoral process free
of undue State interference and in line with OSCE
standards.-
The report makes concrete recommendations on how to
improve Armenia's election framework. These include
measures to address the lack of public confidence in
the electoral process, to ensure that all citizens are
able to cast their votes free of coercion or
intimidation, and to establish a clear separation
between State structures and the ruling party.