0 8000 12 11

On December 6, 2015, S. Soghomonyan, HCA Vanadzor lawyer and observer involved by the Organization, visited the precinct № 30/21 at 49, Nizami St., Vanadzor to attend the RA Constitutional Referendum and to vote. At the same, time S. Soghomonyan also observed the voting process at the precinct above, since there were no observers there.

While filling in relevant data in front of her name in the voters’ list, she saw some notes near the names and surnames of her family to the effect that they had already voted. However, being sure that her family had not voted yet, S. Soghomonyan addressed to Armenuhi Kyureghyan, chairperson of the precinct electoral commission and required that she drafted a relevant protocol to reveal the fact of some other persons voting instead of her family members.

After the chairperson of the commission refused to fulfill her obligations, S. Soghomonyan took relevant measures and later reported the incident to the relevant precinct electoral commission and the police. By the end of the voting, the competent state agencies above failed to take relevant measures to reveal the circumstances covered in the report; particularly, the precinct commission failed to draft relevant protocol. On December 6, 2015, Lori Marz (Region) Investigation Department of the RA Investigative Committee initiated criminal proceedings under Article 153 of the RA Criminal Code.

On January 15, 2015, the RA Investigative Committee issued a statement that the “report above on voting instead of other persons resulted from misinterpretation.”

Considering the criminal proceedings closed, the relevant department of the Investigative Committee issued a decree on discontinuing such proceedings. Then, the RA Investigative Committee issued a statement on the incident and the findings of the investigation; the statement read as follows: “… The person who submitted the report about other persons voting instead of her family members assured that such report resulted from misinterpretation.”

The analysis of the statement above suggests that the investigating body arrived at such a conclusion only by questioning the person who submitted the report and the witnesses, since it follows from the statement that the investigating body took no other steps except from questioning. Particularly, the investigating body failed to check the compliance of the passport details, carry out an expert examination of the handwriting and take other investigative activities.

Hence, the investigative actions taken within the criminal proceedings aimed neither to reveal the circumstances of the crime, nor to detect the offenders or hold them liable.

In fact, throughout the preliminary investigation, S. Soghomonyan never confirmed that her report resulted from any misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

Moreover, in her testimonies provided during the preliminary investigation, S. Soghomonyan reiterated that at the moment of reporting, she was sure that her family members had not gone to the precinct and had not voted by that time. As to the question of the investigating body concerning the steps she took as an observer to resolve the issue of her report, she clearly answered that in her capacity of an observer, she was not competent to reveal the fact of whether other persons had voted instead of someone else and moreover, she had duly fulfilled her duties by reporting the violation she noticed to the chairperson of the precinct electoral commission.”

In this case, it was the investigating body that was under obligation to find out whether S. Soghomonyan’s family members had voted or not. However, according to the information issued by the Investigative Committee, the investigating body above failed to take any actions, except for questioning the person who submitted the report and the witnesses.

It is noteworthy that both before and during the referendum, HCA Vanadzor noticed numerous incidents and reported them to competent state agencies for relevant legal assessment. Also, the Organization issued statements on the pressure and threats against the observers and their family members. None of such statements has received any adequate legal assessment, and no violation has been revealed so far. This also holds true for the report above.