|
<<previous | index | next>> Background: 2003 Presidential Election2The antecedents to the events of the past month are to be found in the 2003 presidential election. In the lead-up to the first round of voting, which took place on February 19, 2003, more than 250 opposition activists, supporters, and election observers were temporarily detained, many of them taken to court and summarily sentenced to up to fifteen days administrative detention for petty offences.3 At the time Human Rights Watch said the detentions were “an obvious attempt to intimidate and disable the opposition before the run-off,” which was held on March 5, 2003. The election itself did not meet international standards and was marred by “serious irregularities, including widespread ballot box stuffing.”4 Although the government set up a working group to study the election violations, it issued a report in March 2003, “essentially dismissing all the facts and conclusions registered by the EOM [Election Observation Mission].”5 The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] attributed the election’s failure to meet international standards to “a lack of sufficient political determination by the authorities to ensure a fair and honest process.”6 It concluded that “[r]estoring confidence in the election process will require prompt and vigorous action by the authorities, including a clear assumption of responsibility and holding accountable those who violated the law, particularly those in official positions who did so.” Stepan Demirchian, the opposition candidate, filed suit with the Constitutional Court, challenging the election results.7 On April 16, 2003 the court ruled that the election result should stand, but that the use of administrative detention in the context of the election harmed Demirchian’s campaign and violated Armenia’s obligations under international law.8 The court recommended that the government hold a referendum of confidence in President Robert Kocharian within a year.9 The government rejected the proposal, arguing that it was not within the court’s authority to recommend such action. The opposition, on the other hand, demanded that the government hold the referendum, or that the president resign from his post.10 The government failed to take the action recommended by the OSCE and the Constitutional Court.11 As the one-year deadline approached in April 2004, the opposition grew more vocal in its demands, threatening mass protests if the government did not hold a referendum or take other action. The government, however, remained steadfast, refusing to respond to opposition demands. By the end of March 2004, the opposition stepped up its campaign to challenge the legitimacy of the president, and began to hold rallies and demonstrations around the country to express its demands. [2] For full details on abuses surrounding the 2003 presidential election, see “An Imitation of Law: The Use of Administrative Detention in the 2003 Armenian Presidential Election,” Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, May 23, 2003. [3] Since the mid-1990s, Armenian authorities have used arrest and administrative detentions as a tool of repression, locking up protesters and activists at times of political tension. With regard to the 2003 detentions, the court hearings were routinely cursory, closed to the public, with no defense counsel, and no opportunity for defendants to present evidence or call witnesses. International bodies condemned the authorities’ use of administrative detention, calling it “simply disgraceful,” and demanded the practice stop and the repeal of the relevant provisions of the Administrative Code. See, “Republic of Armenia, Presidential Election 19 February and 5 March 2003,” page 24, and “Honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia,” paragraph 33, 35, and 106. [4] “Republic of Armenia, Presidential Election 19 February and 5 March 2003,” page 1. [5] Ibid, page 24. [6] Ibid, page 2. [7] The first round of voting on February 19, 2003 was contested by eleven candidates, including the incumbent, Robert Kocharian. Kocharian garnered just less than 50 per cent of the votes case, and, pursuant to Armenian election law, a runoff between Kocharian and Stepan Demirchian, the next most popular candidate, was held on March 5. [8] “Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia on the case of the dispute on the results of the elections for the Republic of Armenia president held on March 5, 2003,” No. 412, Yerevan, April 16, 2003 (unofficial translation made available to Human Rights Watch). [9] According to the Council of Europe, the Constitutional Court later reversed its position, stating in October 2003 that the idea of the referendum “had lost much of its cogency.” “Honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia,” paragraph 53. [10] Ibid, and numerous press reports, including “Armenia Braces for Political Upheaval,” Emil Danielyan, Eurasianet, April 1, 2004 [online], http://eurasianet.net/departments/insight/articles/eav040104a_pr.shtml (retrieved April 27, 2004). [11] Although the government did admit that there were occurrences of fraud during the elections, they disputed the scale of fraud and rejected many of OSCE’s findings. The Procurator General told the Council of Europe in August 2003 that some criminal cases had been opened in relation to election fraud, but that most could not go ahead because the allegations were too broad, or no culprit was named. Also in August 2003, the government made assurances to the Council of Europe that they would revise the Electoral Code to guard against further fraud in the future. “Honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia,” paragraphs 49-65.
|