OSCE/ODIHR report could be much more adequate. Why didn’t it reflect the incidents?
20:04, March 19, 2017 | News
The OSCE/ODIHR released an global (“interim” – HCAV) report on the parliamentary elections to be held in Armenia.
The Report stated that most interlocutors of the OSCE/ODIHR observation mission voiced concerns about vote-buying: “Also, widespread concerns were voiced about pressure and intimidation, including abuse of state resources during the campaign activities.”
The interlocutors of the observation mission said the public were reluctant to report electoral frauds because of the mistrust in the judicial and law-enforcement agencies organizing the elections.
Human rights activist Artur Sakunts, Chairman of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor, observed that the Report merely reflected the situation. “I think such incidents need very in-depth coverage, given that they make obvious the subtexts of the political and even criminal crime. I mean both the Jrarat incidents, and clashes between candidates in various areas, as well as pressure and intimidation of the public, incidents with use of firearms and violence against journalists. Such incidents must have been reflected in the Report”, he said in his interview to NewsBook and added that the Report should have given a proper response to different manifestations of tension.
“The Report doesn’t adequately cover the politically motivated incidents obviously linked with the electoral processes and occurring along with the election campaign. There are some messages there, but I don’t think this Report and this approach may actually make them sensible. It might have been much more adequate. Only with adequate reflection and feedback may it have any impact. This one puts it much mildly than the real state of affairs”, our interlocutor said.
According to him, OSCE/ODIHR seems not to reserve the right to refer to individual incidents before their investigation is over.
“They seem to refrain from stating their opinions more openly. They refrain most likely assuming that only after objective and thorough investigations into such incidents they can express their feedback based on the findings. There are also lots of latent processes that occur and at least need to be recorded. At the very least, it should have been recorded that the situation was tense, and the factors leading to such tension remain unexplained or uninvestigated. This might be worded in a way that would lead to questions assuming answers. The Report covers no such questions to be answered. The OSCE/ODIHR Report could be much more adequate. The Report should have reflected the incidents as factors indicative of pre-election tension. It should for sure have shown the need for proper investigation into the causes that might cast a shadow on the elections to prevent any similar incident in the future,” he said.
Artur Sakunts referred to the fact that this was merely the interim report of OSCE/ODIHR.
“Let’s hope that the final report on the entire election campaign will show a more comprehensive approach. But on the other hand, I wouldn’t like as well us to have any disagreements with OSCE/ODIHR on the opinions of the election campaign. We plan to release our interim report in a few days. We contact the OSCE/ODIHR long-term observers. I’ll certainly express to them my concerns about this interim report as the political expediency may not predominate over the objective reality,” the human rights activist concluded.