ON THE CASE ON THE DISPUTE ON THE RESULTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BY MAJORITARIAN SYSTEM IN CONSTITUENCY # 56 HELD ON MAY 30, 1999

Yerevan, June 22, 1999

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia chaired by the President of the Constitutional Court G. Harutiunian, represented by the Deputy President of the Constitutional Court V. Hovhannissian and the Constitutional Court Members A. Gyulumian, F. Tokhian, H. Nazarian, R. Papayan, V. Poghossian, V. Sahakian and M. Sevian,

with the participation of

the plaintiff Aram Harutiunian, the candidate for deputy of the Republic of Armenia National Assembly, and his official representatives M. Guinossian and R. Safarian,

the respondents, the representatives of the Kotayk Regional Electoral Commission, Chairperson G. Harutiunian, secretary H. Kostanian and member G. Gevorgian,

pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Article 100 and Paragraph 3 of Article 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, to Paragraph 3 of Article 5, to Article 21, to Paragraph 3 of Article 25 and to Article 57 of the Republic of Armenia Law “On the Constitutional Court”,

considered in a public hearing, the case “On the dispute on the results of the National Assembly elections by majoritarian system in constituency # 56 held on May 30, 1999”.

The case was initiated by the candidate for deputy of the Republic of Armenia National Assembly A. Harutiunian’s petition filed with the Constitution Court.

Having examined the petition of the candidate for deputy of the Republic of Armenia National Assembly A.Harutiunian at the June 15, 1999 session, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia made a procedural decision to accept the case for hearing and, in conformity with Articles 39, 40, 41 and 57 of the Republic of Armenia Law “On the Constitutional Court”, to designate the Kotayk Regional Electoral Commission as respondent.

Having heard the report of the Constitutional Court Member V. Poghossian the reporter of the case, having examined the explanations of the parties to the proceedings and having investigated the petition and the existing documents of the case, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia

FINDS:

1. The Republic of Armenia National Assembly elections were held on May 30, 1999 within the timeframe stipulated by Article 68 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. In conformity with Articles 31, 36 and 37 of the Electoral Code of the Republic of Armenia, the Kotayk Regional Electoral Commission and precinct electoral commissions were set up, and in conformity with Article 98, constituency # 56, which incorporated 20 electoral precincts, was established in the Kotayk region.

In compliance with the procedure stipulated by Article 114 of the Electoral Code of the Republic of Armenia, all the 11 candidates for the National Assembly elections registered by the Regional Electoral Commission were included in the ballots for the majoritarian system in constituency # 56. According to the final protocol of the Kotayk Regional Electoral Commission, 17,128 voters of the constituency took part in the elections. The overall number of ballots cast for the candidates was 15,626. The breakdown was as follows: 1,044 ballots cast for R. Azizian, 522 - for R. Avetissian, 708 - for S. Avetissian, 105 - for V. Baghdassarian, 1,292 - for A. Danielian, 619 - for V. Tangamian, 3,721 - for A. Harutiunian, 583 - for G. Margarian, 2,094 - for A. Mkrtchian, 1,196 - for V. Nikoghossian and 3,757 ballots - for A. Simonian.

The Kotayk Regional Electoral Commission adopted a decision that Aghassi Simonian had been elected as a deputy of the National Assembly with majority number of votes on June 3, 1999.

2. In his petition, the plaintiff contended that summarizing the election results in constituency # 56 the Regional Electoral Commission violated the provisions of Articles 116 and 62 of the RA Electoral Code and disregarded a number of circumstances, in particular, the precinct electoral commissions in Constituency # 56 had not made up protocols about the number of inaccuracies (Paragraph 4 of Article 60 of the RA Electoral Code); even though the inaccuracies, calculated on the basis of the final protocols from 4 electoral precincts only (electoral precincts 1054, 1057, 1055 and 1060), amount to 137, while the Regional Electoral Commission, in its final protocol, reported zero number of inaccuracies. According to the plaintiff, the inaccuracies calculated on the basis of the final protocol of the Regional Electoral Commission, amount to 2,051. Thus, in his estimation, since the difference between the two candidates, who received the most votes, were 36, according to Paragraph 5 of Article 116 of the RA Electoral Code, the elections have to be declared as null and void. The plaintiff also lists a number of other violations of the RA Electoral Code that were examined by the court of first instance of the Kotayk region.

3. The respondent raised an objection to that the inaccuracies calculated in electoral precincts 1054, 1057, 1055 and 1060 of constituency 56 amount only to 24. The respondent strongly believes that June 3, 1999 decision of the Kotayk Regional Electoral Commission on the election of a deputy of the National Assembly from constituency # 56 well founded. At the same time the respondent does not accept other violations noted by the plaintiff.

4. As to the suit brought by the plaintiff, the local court of the Kotayk region stated in June 3, 1999 ruling that indeed as a result of violations committed in the pre-election and election day phases in electoral precinct 1054, the Commission had failed to stamp all the ballots, the voting at that polling station had started with 20-30-minutes delay, and from about 12:00 noon till around 1:00 p.m. the routine functioning of the commission had been disrupted. 59 ballots for majoritarian system and 59 ballots for proportional system elections had been taken out of the polling station premises and for about 30-40 minutes the activities of polling station had been suspended, numerous citizens had been deprived of their right to vote because of the inaccuracies in voters lists. At the same time, the Court decided not to make changes in the final protocol of the electoral commission of precinct 1054.

According to the final protocol on the election results, the number of inaccuracies in that precinct was 54.

5. At the preliminary stage of the case the Constitutional Court demanded additional documentation from the RA Central Electoral Commission, from the Kotayk Regional Electoral Commission, from the RA Ministry of Justice and from the RA General Prosecutor’s Office and examined them.

6. The calculation of the magnitude of inaccuracies by the plaintiff on the basis of the data in the final protocol of the Kotayk Regional Electoral Commission cannot be considered valid, since the decision of the regional electoral commission on the number of inaccuracies is based on final protocols of the precinct electoral commissions.

According to the final protocols of the precinct commissions, the number of inaccuracies in constituency # 56 presented by the Kotayk Regional Electoral Commission is 95: 0 in precinct 1052, 13 in precinct 1053, 54 - in precinct 1054, 1 - in precinct 1055, 0 - in precinct 1056, 7 - in precinct 1057, 10 - in precinct 1058, 0 - in precinct 1059, 1 - in precinct 1060, 0 - in precinct 1061, 1 - in precinct 1062, 0 - in precinct 1063, 0 - in precinct 1064, 0 - in precinct 1065, 0 - in precinct 1066, 6 - in precinct 1067, 0 - in precinct 1068, 0 - in precinct 1069 and 2 - in precinct 1070. Even though the protocols from the electoral precincts 1063, 1057 and 1066 report 0 inaccuracies, the calculations made on the basis of the data available in the same protocols and according to provisions of Paragraph 4 of Article 60 of the RA Electoral Code, the number of inaccuracies are 257, 307 and 198 respectively.

The Kotayk Regional Electoral Commission Chairman’s statement that the correct number of cancelled ballots and the overall number of the ballots in electoral precinct 1054 is, respectively, 679 and 1,840 is not valid since the Court decision referred to above, explicitly states that the numerical figures of final protocol # 7 drawn by the precinct electoral commission in electoral precinct 1054 are not subject to change.

However, even proceeding from the explanatory statements made by the respondent to the effect that 24 is the estimated number of inaccuracies in electoral precincts 1054, 1055, 1057 and 1060, and adding to them the number of inaccuracies in other electoral precincts (32) calculated on the basis of the protocols submitted by the respondent (in particular, in precincts 1053, 1058, 1062, 1067 and 1070), the overall number will reach 56, whereas the difference in ballots cast for the candidates who got the best and second best results in the given constituency is 36, according to the final protocol of the Regional Electoral Commission. According to Paragraph 5 of Article 116 of the RA Electoral Code, in a situation like this it is impossible to identify the winning candidate.

Proceeding from the results of the case, hearing and adhering to Paragraph 3 of Article 100 and to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, to Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and to Articles 67 and 68 of the Republic of Armenia Law “On the Constitutional Court”, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia

G. Harutiunian
President of the Constitutional Court