0 8000 12 11

As reported before, HCA Vanadzor and its observer challenge the lawfulness of the actions of district election commission №14 at the RA NA elections of April 2, 2017. Note that upon noticing cases when the same person assisted for 3 times persons unable to vote independently at polling station №14/10 in Armavir marz (region), O.A., who conducted observation mission within ‘Independent Observer’ Alliance, suggested that the commission chairperson recorded the fraud in the register but was denied. A relevant complaint was also rejected by the district election commission №14 insisting that the fraud was recorded.

Note that the defendant party expressed a different view on the issue at the Administrative Court noting that the observer did not suggest recording the fraud.

The district election commission also refused to involve HCA Vanadzor in the examination of the complaint noting that it did not concern any violation of the Organization’s rights.

However, the RA Administrative Court, considered this statement groundless and particularly noted that “the defendant (district electoral commission) had some misconception of the institute of third party, challenging the inaction of a relevant commission and the institute of interested party authorized to submit applications to the commission and therefore, considering the substance and nature of the third party’s status the Court holds that such reasoning is unacceptable.”

Nevertheless, the Court considered that in this case, the observer also indirectly represented the interests of the Organization and the fact that the district election commission did not involve HCA Vanadzor in the examination of the complaint did not make the challenged act invalid. However, the fact that the observation mission may challenge the violation of its observer’s rights before the RA Administrative Court may be considered an established fact in the legal practice.