Comments on the press statement
Of the OSCE observation of the first round
Of the Armenian Presidential Election (March 16, 1998)

We would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm our willingness to
work in collaboration with the OSCE.

We were interested by your preliminary statement on the observation of
the first round of the Armenian presidential election.  After having
carefully read the report we would be grateful if you could clarify for
us the different issues raised by it.

You mention the violence that took place in Ararat March 8.  Later on
you note that the Ministry of the Interior reacted quickly to this
deplorable incident by arresting 4 people.  It would seem that this is
the only case of violence and we do not quite understand why the final
press statement states that if such an event would repeat itself, it
would have an influence on your election report.  Are you by this,
thinking of the second round of voting and, if so, are you not afraid
that your press report will thus incite certain "people" to use violence
in order to influence your future decisions regarding the second round?

The statement mentions the difficulties encountered at the level of the
voters lists as a result of the unexpectedness of the elections.  You
are aware of the efforts that were made in updating the lists right up
to the day of the elections and that the additional lists could contain
in many cases a considerable number of new voters. We have heard that
the Republic of Armenia has obtained, in this area, quite a success when
compared to other evolving democracies in the world.

We perfectly understand your statement that the election campaign
proceeded quite smoothly but not without problems.  We totally agree
with your point of view because no election takes place without
problems.  Two years ago an OSCE member, from the Western world, gave an
example of wide-scale fraud that lead to recounts and prosecutions.
We would like to know more about the 15% of  "significant violations"
which were reported.  This figure implies, of course, that 85% were in
conformity with the laws and regulations.

You also regret that the first round of the election fell short of OSCE
standards.  This was quite a surprise to us as, after reading
observation reports of elections in member states, we believe that the
average standards applied to other countries is lower than the one that
will come out of your final report.

Voting process

You give the general impression that the voting process was positive in
most cases.  Nevertheless, you stress that "at least in three precincts"
there were examples of ballot stuffing.  You also mention that you have
"substantial evidence" of attempts to stuff ballot boxes in "several
more precincts".  We are of the understanding of course that these
incidents were witnessed by observers and not merely reported to them.

Military vote

We do not quite understand your comment on the military vote.  You
mention the presence of officers in the "polling place".  You well know
that in the English language "polling place" has not the same meaning as
"polling station".  "Polling place" designates the building where there
are one, two or more polling stations and in that case the presence of
an officer in a polling place is not illegal.

We do not understand your comment on the level of speed and
communication between the Ministry of Defense and the Central Election
Commission.  The document from the Ministry of Defense dated March 13th
was at the disposal of the OSCE, in our office, on the 15th and was
taken by your representative on the morning of the 16th.


Use of  State Resources

We are in full agreement with you about State Resources not being used
for campaigning.  We were surprised to learn that at this time of the
year a candidate could influence a voter by giving him kerosene as
kerosene in our country is used for heating.  
Nonetheless, we assume that you had all the data necessary about the
identity of the persons involved before you wrote about the alleged
"fact".

Police in the Polling Stations

You mention the presence of unauthorized persons as well as
non-identified personnel, particularly of the Ministry of the Interior,
in the polling stations.  If non-identified, how did the observers know
they were from the Ministry of the Interior?.  Did the observers ask
them or were they told by an informant?  And do you really think that if
asked by the observers, these non-identified persons would answer that
they belonged to the Ministry of the Interior?  I am sure you are well
aware, that all information has to be checked.
We have asked our legal department if there are any complaints about the
"police and the Ministry personnel being involved" in the voting or
counting procedures.  Their answer is that, to this moment, we have
received 73 complaints but not one has to do with this issue.

Media bias

You consider as positive the efforts made to reduce the bias in the
coverage of the candidates' campaign.
We wish to remind you that there are 2 official television channels that
cover the whole of the country.  Additionally, 3 private channels work
in Yerevan.  Furthermore, each large city has its own private channel.  
As far as the printed press is concerned, there are 457 papers
registered.  Of course only a few produce either daily or weekly, but we
do not know of any democratic state that forbids the press from
supporting a candidate during his or her electoral campaign.


We are aware of the difficulties of applying the electoral law.  You
well know that it should have been replaced by another one in April 1998
and it is only because of the unexpected resignation of the President of
the Republic that it is still in use.  


Please be assured of our full collaboration with the OSCE in order to
consolidate democracy in the Republic of Armenia.


Khachatour BEZIRJIAN
Chairman of the Central Electoral Committee
Of the Republic of Armenia