ARF Bureau member Lilit Galstyan highlights findings on Armenia’s June 7 elections

ARF Bureau member Lilit Galstyan commented on the preliminary conclusions issued by the International Election Observation Mission of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe regarding Armenia’s June 7 parliamentary elections.

In a social media post, Galstyan argued that the observers’ report contained a number of noteworthy findings that echoed concerns previously raised by opposition forces during the election campaign. She noted that some of the issues identified in the report had been presented to international observers by the Armenia Alliance in reports documenting alleged preelection violations, as well as during meetings held with observation missions ahead of the vote.

The following is Galstyan’s translated commentary:

“Notable findings

The preliminary conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission — PACE, the OSCE PA and Council of Europe — contain a number of noteworthy observations. Naturally, the report could have been more comprehensive, objective, firm and specific.

Nevertheless, it includes several substantive assessments, some of which were raised in the two reports prepared by the Armenia Alliance regarding preelection violations submitted to the observers, as well as during meetings Arthur Khachatryan and I held with international observation missions on the eve of the elections.

The report specifically notes:

1. “The campaign was marked by a high level of confrontation and divisive rhetoric, as well as allegations of vote-buying and other electoral violations, which led to numerous criminal proceedings against opposition candidates and activists. As a result, many opposition supporters refrained from actively participating in the campaign.”
2. “These circumstances, along with pressure exerted on public sector employees to attend ruling party events and recently introduced social and economic measures, raised concerns regarding equality of opportunity in campaigning.”
3. “The campaign was active and largely peaceful, but highly polarized and confrontational, accompanied by repeated use of provocative rhetoric, including by the lead candidate of the ruling party.”
4. “Certain additional amendments adopted in 2026 were introduced through expedited procedures, with limited consultation and without broad political support. Some were adopted after the elections had been called, contrary to OSCE commitments and international good practice.”
5. “The ODIHR Election Assessment Mission observed and received numerous reports, some of which it considered credible, concerning pressure on voters to participate in ruling party campaign events.”
6. “The Public Broadcaster demonstrated clear bias in favor of the ruling party, contrary to its legal obligations and public service mandate.”
7. “Several prominent leaders from the European Union and the United States publicly expressed support for the prime minister, which was perceived by most opposition parties that met with the observation mission as external involvement in favor of the ruling party.”
8. “The prime minister used insulting and inflammatory language, including toward displaced Armenian refugees.”
9. “The prime minister also publicly threatened opposition candidates with investigations and the nationalization of companies associated with them.”
10. “Prior to the elections, the government introduced a number of social and economic measures, contrary to OSCE commitments and international standards requiring a clear separation between the state and political parties. These measures may undermine the principle of equal opportunity for political parties and alliances competing in the elections.”
11. “Media pluralism further declined after opposition-affiliated H2 and Yerkir Media lost their terrestrial broadcasting licenses between 2021 and 2023, while the Armenian Apostolic Church-affiliated Shoghakat TV recently ceased operations.”
12. “Armenia’s Public Broadcaster continues to maintain a dominant position in the broadcasting sector, benefiting from stable state funding while also receiving substantial revenue from commercial advertising.”
13. “Contrary to its legal obligations and public mission, Armenia’s Public Broadcaster displayed clear bias in favor of the ruling party in H1 news programs and covered the main opposition parties and alliances in a predominantly negative tone.”
14. “H1 devoted 14% of its coverage to the Civil Contract Party, primarily in a positive tone, while Strong Armenia, the Armenia Alliance and Prosperous Armenia received 17%, 11%, and 10% coverage, respectively, predominantly in a negative tone.”

P.S. I remain of the opinion that, despite geopolitical biases, double standards, and other considerations, it is important to engage and communicate with international organizations.”