СЕССИЯ ПАСЕ: На повестке -

[mazd]

Интересно...

* * *

Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan). – Thank you, Mr President. We will be together in Azerbaijan in the near future, which is very important for us.

Dear friends, elections are one of the key indicators of the democratic development of a country. The Parliamentary Assembly has discussed different elections and different problems with the organisation of elections, voters and lists of voters. In the history of the Council of Europe, however, we have never seen elections like those in Armenia, which had such terrible, dramatic results. In two days, we will discuss the functioning – or non-functioning – of democratic institutions in Armenia. When I read the report presented by Mr Prescott, whom I respect, I decided to speak about the elections themselves.

Mr Prescott, your report gave us the general conclusion that the presidential election in Armenia was administered in line with Council of Europe standards. What does that mean? Has killing people become a standard of the Council of Europe? Have arresting hundreds of people for taking part in rallies, and arresting four members of parliament for their oppositional views – with one wanted as a criminal – become standards of this Organisation? We do not know. Perhaps new standards are coming to Europe, but I am not so sure. I want to express my gratitude to the Council of Europe for deciding to have an urgent debate on Armenia.

Mr Prescott, you said that nine people have been killed during the rallies. Yes, we know about that, but we have proof that 20 people died in hospital in the following days. Twenty-eight people have been killed during the demonstrations. Just a few people were killed in the demonstrations in Tibet, and the whole world stood up and asked, “What is going on in China?” But what is going on in Armenia? We do not know, but we have to find out, and we will do our best to do so.

Dear friends, we have to understand that there have been such events throughout history. We have seen such events in Vilnius, Tbilisi, and Baku, when Soviet troops came to our capitals and killed people. The Soviet Union was an autocratic country. Perhaps Armenia has become an autocratic country; we do not know, but we should investigate. I fully support the suggestion which has just been made about creating a special investigation board to look into the situation in Armenia and present its findings to the Council of Europe. I do not want to accept the report. I am fully against it; it is not objective, and it is not an inquiry of European standards. Thank you.

[mazd]

Mrs MEMECAN (Turkey). – I was a member of the ad hoc committee that was in Armenia to observe the presidential elections. People of the small town to which I was assigned kept coming to the polling stations all day long and they experienced yet another election that was certainly not perfect but that was accepted by the international observing committees present.

Awareness and willing participation are of the utmost importance for young democracies to flourish. It takes many free election experiences for people to correct mistakes, improve the election system and to live and learn from the outcome of their votes so that they can understand the power of their votes. Therefore, the 70% overall participation rate was a good sign for democracy in Armenia.

The international community has a great responsibility to observe objectively, to criticise and to recommend accordingly so as to improve elections in the monitored countries. The protests that began after election day were a sign that people were not satisfied with the election system and were eager to voice their objections. With their protests, Armenians showed that they would not accept the next time round the flaws in this election and that they would seek ways to improve the election system and the conduct of elections. Awareness of the need for improvement is a healthy sign in a growing democracy. Unfortunately, what started out as peaceful demonstrations ended up in unacceptable violence and the death of many people.

As the PACE press release and the current report note, there was an apparent lack of confidence in the election system and the conduct of the elections. Statements made by the international election observer mission immediately after election day added to the frustration of the protesters. The generally positive assessment by the international observers, despite many allegations of fraud and the observation of flaws, caused frustration and led to questioning of the credibility of the international observer mission.

The mistrust in the election observation process added to the low level of public confidence in the electoral process. The Armenian experience should lead to discussions about reviewing standards and improving the international monitoring of elections. There is certainly a need for many improvements in the election system and the conduct of elections in Armenia. The report by Mr Prescott successfully details where improvements are needed and offers recommendations for free and fair elections in Armenia. Investigations should continue and shortcomings should be identified as soon as possible.

[mazd]

Mr Raffi HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – The Council of Europe is a forum for the rule of law and its equal and universal application in every circumstance and in every country. This is a place to come clean, to accept the obvious and to surmount denial, leaving little patriotisms back home for the time being. This is an arena for human rights and for the recognition of and prevention of crimes against humanity, including genocide. It is a forum where, some day, Turkey, our important neighbour, or a brave conscientious delegate, who might even be sitting here today, will rise to acknowledge the great genocide and the national dispossession of land and homes that were attendant on that genocide. It is a place to ask, “How can we together right that wrong?”

This is a forum for democracy and executing the rule of law and for acknowledging cultural heritage and national self-determination and sovereignty. Instead of trying to use this place as an opportunity to score partisan points to show back home, we should bravely put the issues that relate to us.

Long before Kosovo was on the international agenda, it was mountainous Karabakh that challenged Stalin’s legacy and offered a constitutional, juridical and legal reversal of that legacy through a referendum. It was the first step in the decolonisation of the Soviet Union and it is in this forum that one day an Azerbaijani colleague will stand up and say that responsibility is collective. When we talk about refugees and internally displaced persons and about territorial and security issues and suffering, the issues belong to all of us and not to any of us separately. Maybe they will say that we, too, erred in launching a war of aggression against Karabakh’s liberty instead of talking to its leaders and its people. Maybe that day will come to pass, beginning here, in this Chamber.

The Council of Europe also stands for the implementation of law at home; for democracy and due process. We wish our neighbours well, but neither Turkey, nor Azerbaijan, nor anyone else is to blame for Armenia’s shortcomings, failings and drawbacks. That is an issue for the new sovereign republic of Armenia. In the words of the famous playwright in “All’s Well That Ends Well”, “our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, Which we ascribe to heaven”.

Nobody, including Armenia, can be given special treatment or a free pass. As a citizen of Armenia and of Europe, representing a nation that was one of the sources of European civilisation, I demand that Armenia be placed under the highest possible democratic scrutiny, first and foremost by its own people and then by the Council of Europe and the other international institutions to which it belongs.

It is good that the report shows a step forward, mostly in line with international standards. However, no mainstream European country would allow in its jurisdiction the pre-election inequities, the irregular, fraudulent and at times violent conduct of election day and the post-election position. The report’s findings and conclusions do not match. Together, dear colleagues, we must turn this forum into a place where we do not come to score points, but to create a universal set of values that apply equally throughout the continent –

THE PRESIDENT. – This is the first time that I have used the button to cut off the microphone, but there must be a first time. We must try to keep to time. The next speaker is Ms Pashayeva.

[mazd]

Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan). – First, I thank the rapporteurs for their full and comprehensive contributions. My colleagues expressed their thoughts about the elections in some member countries since the winter part-session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I would like to express my opinion of the last presidential election in Armenia.

Since Armenia occupied 20% of Azerbaijani territory, as it was designated in the resolutions of the United Nations and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 1 million Azerbaijanis have been living the lives of refugees and internally displaced persons. They have done so for more than 15 years. Recent elections in Armenia and processes that occurred on the eve of those elections and afterwards not only worry the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, international organisations and other non-governmental organisations, but have increased the tension in the South Caucasus region.

During his election campaign and inauguration ceremonies, the current President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, made many statements that struck a blow to the negotiations, which continue, with the mediation of the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group of the OSCE. The most terrible aspect is that official Yerevan carried out Armenian presidential elections in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, too, namely, in the Nagorno-Karabakh, Lachin and Kalbajarh districts. Thus, official Yerevan has shown its unwillingness to carry out the commitments that it undertook to the Council of Europe about a peaceful settlement of conflict, thereby breaking international rules of law again.

Having seen the sharp reactions of the international organisations and the public to the extraordinary position and the regime that was declared soon after the elections, the Government of Armenia resorted – to divert the attention of the international organisations and the population – to provocative steps that were very dangerous to the whole region. On 4 March, Armenian armed forces broke the cease-fire and attacked the Azerbaijani armed forces and the civilian population from military positions that were built in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Some people were killed and others wounded.

That inflamed the situation in the region and struck a blow against the negotiation process for trying to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and bring peace. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe must demand that the Armenian Government cease actions that intensify the situation in the region and fulfil the requirements of Resolution 1416. Otherwise, the situation will become more aggravated.

My colleagues, Mr Németh and Ms Lundgren, spoke comprehensively about events during the elections in Armenia. I simply wish to say that we do not have to apply double standards in our approach to such foundation stones of the Council of Europe as democratic and free elections, the protection of human rights and other values and principles. Treating some countries that have committed violations leniently and others severely seriously shakes the faith and confidence of the people of Europe in this Organisation. Armenia, as a member of the Council of Europe, must abide by the Organisation’s standards and principles, and fulfil the accepted commitments.

THE PRESIDENT. – According to the clock in front of me, it is time to interrupt the list of speakers, but according to the other clock, we have four minutes for Mrs Jonker, who will be the last speaker.

[mazd]

Mrs JONKER (Netherlands). – I made a statement to the Bureau meeting, which I wish to make to all colleagues in the Assembly. It is about our co-operation with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly during the observation of elections. Last year, I was personally involved in election observation missions in Serbia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Armenia, and twice in Russia. Every time we conduct such missions with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and sometimes with the European Parliament, we have problems in saying and writing what we want. The Russian elections were the only exceptions.

The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and ODIHR have greatly differing approaches. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly seems to have different interests, which influence its conclusions about the elections. I do not want to elaborate on the problems of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and ODIHR, although they may be the most important underlying problems. However, we cannot solve them.

My concern is the good work of the Council. During all election observation missions, the Council needs to act as a mediator between the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and ODIHR in preparing the press statements and the press conference. Sometimes, those preparations are a real fight. Consequently, press statements are far too diplomatic and explained by the press too positively. Sometimes the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly or the European Parliament head of mission blows up the press statements by being too positive at the press conference. After that, it does not matter what we write in our reports – the point has been made in the international press. I do not like that at all.

If we cannot make critical points, we had better stop co-operating with the OSCE. We would miss only the co-operation of and information from ODIHR. Perhaps, too, we would miss some of the attention of international journalists because the OSCE is the most famous of our organisations. However, from the point of view of the credibility of our election observations, I would not miss them. I suggest a serious conversation between our Bureaux. I want to ask all our colleagues and all members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to debate this subject and thus solve the internal problem.

I want to make another smaller, though no less important, point. I hope that, in future, it will be possible to include formally the reports of the election observation missions in the monitoring reports so that the findings from election observations can play a greater role in the monitoring debate. Elections are an important stage in the democratisation process.

I want to end my statement by suggesting that member states that do not have monitoring status should invite the OSCE to observe their elections. We often point our finger at the monitoring countries, but there are also things that can be improved in other countries. That would also create a wonderful opportunity to exchange views.

[mazd]

Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – We were warned by the President at the beginning to keep the elections apart from the other serious issues that will be debated on Thursday, but that was not always observed. It is not our job to comment on the difficulties in Azerbaijan and Armenia, which have been going on for a long time. I have to say to Mr Seyidov that all that stuff about the Council of Europe’s standards was absolute rubbish and does not help us to encourage democracy in these countries. It is made clear in our report why we thought that there were differences. We congratulated the countries on doing what the Council had asked, but they have not done everything. We want them to do more. We were the first to call for an inquiry, and we will continue to do so. This matter will also be brought up in the debate on Thursday. Let us remember, when we use this kind of language, that we are trying to assist countries to come to a democratic process. That is our job and we will continue to do it.

[mazd]

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Before we examine the draft agenda, the Assembly needs to consider the request for a debate under urgent procedure. The request was submitted by the political groups and concerns “The functions of democratic institutions in Armenia”.

At its meeting this morning, the Bureau approved this request and therefore recommends to the Assembly that the matter be placed on the agenda for this part-session. If the Assembly agrees with the Bureau’s proposal, the Bureau proposes to hold the debate and vote as the first item on the morning of Thursday 17 April.

Does the Assembly agree to the recommendation of the Bureau that this debate should be placed on the agenda for this part-session?

The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted.

The request for urgent procedure is approved.

The Assembly must now decide to which committee the subject should be referred. The Bureau proposes that this subject be referred to the Monitoring Committee for report.

Is this agreed?

The reference is agreed to.

[mazd]

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Prescott to present the report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Observation of the Presidential Election in Armenia, Document 11564.

Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom). – I feel that this is a much more controversial subject for discussion. I find myself in a curious position, in that while we are dealing with a report on the result of the election, the consequences that have flowed from the election have been considerable. They affect the democratic institutions in Armenia and, in that context, we have a number of recommendations to make. We will discuss those recommendations on Thursday, when we debate the functioning of those democratic institutions. With your agreement, Mr President, I shall speak today only about the result of the election. There are matters contingent on it, but I do not have enough time to deal with them now, so I shall do so on Thursday.

Along with colleagues, I attended the election on 19 February. During a pre-election visit, I spoke to the nine candidates for the presidency. One of them was the then Prime Minister, who is now the new President. We formed an ad hoc committee with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. The fact that the Prime Minister was a candidate for the presidency caused a bit of a ruckus. As everyone here will understand, in the circumstances it might well be assumed that he would receive more attention than an ordinary candidate. Although that is certainly not unique to Armenia, I think that it should prompt some recommendations in regard to what constitutes fairness.

During the period leading up to the election, the handling of publicity and attention was much less fair than it was on the official starting date. I shall say more about that at a later stage. As for the result, the then Prime Minister, Mr Sargsyan, won 52.7% of the vote, and the main opposing candidate, Mr Ter-Petrossyan, won 21.5%. Four of the candidates received some 97% of the vote. Of course the vote was contested, and in fact arrangements for a protest were made before the result was announced. Indeed, one candidate declared that he had already won 66% of the vote before it was announced.

There is a contention, and a difficulty, that the Assembly will have to face at some stage. We must consider the role of an opposition that sees no chance of using the electoral process properly, assumes that it will lose, and arranges for a protest to take place on the following day. That may seem a rather unfair procedure. Moreover, it led to a protest in which nine people were killed, one of whom was a policeman. As a result, a state of emergency was imposed. It was lifted on 20 March and replaced by some amendments.

Although the result of the election was confirmed by the Constitutional Court, it raises serious issues, some of which I shall explain if I have an opportunity to do so on Thursday.

[mazd]

Mr NÉMETH (Hungary). – Thank you very much, Mr President. Although you have warned me that we will speak about Armenia on Thursday, there is a very good reason to touch on Armenia now as well.

You, Mr Rapporteur, state that the elections in Armenia were basically in line with Council of Europe principles and norms. I would like to challenge that view. Are you aware that nine deaths occurred as a consequence of those “free elections”? Are you aware that more than 100 political prisoners have been arrested and not released since the events occurred? Are you aware that although the state of emergency has been lifted, restrictive laws on the curtailing of freedoms, such as freedom of assembly, have since been adopted without consulting the Council of Europe, not to mention the Venice Commission? Are you aware that as a consequence of the bad conduct of elections, the opposition reject the legitimacy of the President and are calling for pre-term elections?

I do not want to question your good will, but there is no doubt that a political solution is required to defuse the tense situation in Armenia. For that reason, the Group of the European People’s Party proposes that the Armenian authorities should launch an independent investigation with the full engagement of the opposition. Unless the Armenian authorities are ready to conduct such an investigation, and unless it takes place, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly should launch such an investigation. That is the general conclusion to be drawn from the situation.

The Group of the European People’s Party proposes further that the system of election observation should be fundamentally changed. The existing system is extremely dangerous. We observe elections for only a couple of days, and consequently the Council of Europe legitimises anti-democratic election practices. If we are not able to change the existing system we would do better not to conduct any election observation at all – obviously, that is not the proposal of the Group of the European People’s Party; we propose a fundamental reform in election observation. We have many ideas, but the Armenian example shows that it is high time to introduce a new system of election observation. Thank you for you attention.

[mazd]

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden). – Thank you Mr President.

Improving democracy in Council of Europe member states is one of our core values. The election day is the day when the people express their opinion on the past and give a mandate for the future. The election day is the end of the campaign and should be based on freedoms such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of media – if people use those freedoms, they can rely on the fact that they are free.

Taking part in observations is crucial for us as parliamentarians. Usually, we do that together, through the long-term observers, but we have twice seen cases in Russia where there were no long-term observers. We have to draw common conclusions from the missions we are in: do we have an impact on the pre-election and election missions? We have to look for improvements, and we have to be able to follow up remarks made on an election in the monitoring procedures. We have to be able to compare elections in the observed country, so that we can get a good picture of the direction it is taking and of whether it is moving forwards or away from free and fair elections. We have to be able to compare what we have seen in different observed countries, and our conclusions on them, and perhaps find some basic criteria in respect of what we are seeing. That may be a question for the Monitoring Committee, but it is certainly a question for the Council of Europe.

[mazd]

Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) congratulated Mr Prescott on his detailed report. More than 400 observers, including 70 parliamentarians from the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, followed the presidential elections in Armenia. Like all such elections, it had demonstrated the political will of the country’s authorities and their ability to organise elections that were truly free and fair. Compared with the 2003 elections, which had not been judged in accordance with the standards of the Council of Europe, the presidential elections on 12 May 2007 had shown clear improvement. The international observer mission noted that they had taken place in accordance with guidance. Considerable progress had been observed on the free conduct of the campaign and the access of candidates to media, particularly television. The candidate list had been strong, with considerable competition offering electors a choice.

Turnout had been particularly high, but further improvement was required, as was some political will to resolve underlying problems in the electoral system. This was reflected in a lack of confidence among the public and a lack of clear separation between the state and parties. The Assembly had heard of attempts to influence or intimidate electors or to buy votes. A system that would re-establish the confidence of the people was essential. In the current environment, it was not possible to assess the results. Developments since the election had brought tragic consequences for Armenia, and a state of emergency had become inevitable.

The elections and subsequent developments had given rise to serious concerns in a country trying to carry through political, economic and social reforms, and a solution to the crisis was needed. It was for politicians to work to consolidate democratic institutions, and they required help in doing that from the European institutions.

[mazd]

Ms DE POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden). – I have been in this Parliamentary Assembly since January 2007 and I have observed elections in four countries: Turkey, Ukraine, Russia and Armenia. The elections I observed in Armenia were the worst I have seen so far. The opening of the polling stations and the proceedings on the day were not too bad, but the counting in the polling station that I chose to visit was a disaster. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong. The number of voters who had voted and who had been marked on the list of voters was not counted, unused ballot papers were not destroyed and the protocol in which the results were to be entered had already been signed by members of the election committee.

The most serious incident involved the chairperson of the local election committee reading out the wrong names when the ballot papers were to be put into different piles for the nine candidates. The chairperson was well aware of what she was doing. She was taking votes from Levon Ter-Petrossyan and allocating them to the current Prime Minister, Serzh Sargsyan. Election officials tried to hide what they were doing by holding their hands over the ballot papers or by placing them in the middle of the piles so that I could not see them.

When the officials were supposed to sum up the votes for the different candidates, 100 votes were missing. I know that I was not supposed to say anything but I could not help mentioning what I had seen, so the officials pretended to count the votes quickly and then decided that those votes should go to Serzh Sargsyan, the guy who won the election.

All candidates were allowed to have proxies to observe the elections and the counting, but the only observers at the polling station I chose were three young men from Serzh Sargsyan’s party. These three young men created an unpleasant and uneasy atmosphere in the room. My interpreter was very scared and asked me not to say anything more but just to observe and take notice. I noticed that all the election officials were well aware of what they were doing and they felt uneasy when I stood behind them watching the electoral fraud. But that did not prevent them from continuing to do what they had probably already planned, namely to ensure that the sitting prime minister got enough votes so that there would be no need for a second round. If what I observed occurred in just one tenth of the polling stations, of course there would have been an effect on the result. I reported everything that I saw and returned to my hotel disillusioned, upset and tired. I could not sleep.

I am very critical of the fact that from a press conference the following day you could have got the impression that the election had been conducted in the most correct way and according to international standards. Do we help the Armenian people by believing that? I do not think so.

I also went to visit the parliament building. I tried to take a photograph, but three policemen and guards rushed after me and said, “No, no. You can’t take a photo.” I asked them in Russian, “Why?” and they told me that the parliament was “secret”. That summarises very well the current position in Armenia. If a stronghold of democracy, which is what a parliament should be, is secret, there are no opportunities for democracy, transparency, human rights or free and fair elections.

[mazd]

если так пойдет и дальше, в четверг будет очень непредсказуемое обсуждение... :hm:

[mazd]

ԿԱՐԵՎՈՐ ՆԻՍՏ

[12:04] 15 Ապրիլի, 2008

Տեղական ժամանակով` ժամը 8.30-ին Եվրոպայի Խորհրդի Մոնիտորինգի կոմիտեում սկսվել է նիստ, որին մասնակցում են Հայաստանի պատվիրակությունից միանգամից 4 անդամներ` Դավիթ Հարությունյանը, Արմեն Ռուստամյանը, Ավետ Ադոնցը, Րաֆֆի Հովհաննիսյանը: Նիստում պատգամավորներ Ջ. Կոլումբիերը եւ Ջ. Ժրեսկոտը ներկայացնում են իրենց զեկույցը Հայաստանի դեմոկրատական ինստիտուտների վերաբերյալ: ԵԽԽՎ-ում քննարկումը տեղի է ունենալու ապրիլի 17-ին:

Մոնիտորինգի կոմիտեի նիստը փակ է լրատվամիջոցների համար:

Կարինե Ասատրյան

Ստրասբուրգ

[mazd]

ПАСЕ развернула антипрезидентскую кампанию

// Совет Европы обсудил выборы в России и Армении

Газета «Коммерсантъ» № 63(3880) от 15.04.2008

Глава делегации РФ в ПАСЕ Константин Косачев убежден, что президент России сменился демократическим путем, и не понимает претензий Совета Европы к российским выборам

В Страсбурге вчера открылась весенняя сессия Парламентской ассамблеи Совета Европы (ПАСЕ). Первым делом делегаты обсудили прошедшие президентские выборы в России. Парламентарии сошлись во мнении, что эти выборы не были ни свободными, ни справедливыми, и даже задались вопросом, какие меры стоит применить к России. Однако не исключено, что еще раньше меры могут быть применены против Армении. Президентские выборы в этой стране вчера стали причиной крупного скандала в ПАСЕ.

Несправедливая Россия

Утреннее заседание ПАСЕ началось с обсуждения докладов наблюдателей о состоявшихся в Европе за последние три месяца выборах: президентских в России, Армении, Сербии и Черногории, а также парламентских в Монако. При этом бурную реакцию собравшихся вызвали только российская и армянская избирательные кампании.

ПАСЕ — единственная международная организация, которая направила своих наблюдателей на президентские выборы в России 2 марта. Руководил миссией швейцарец Андреас Гросс, который, выступая вчера перед ассамблеей, заявил, что выборы в России не были ни свободными, ни справедливыми.

"Выборы не могут быть свободными или честными, если у граждан нет возможности выбирать. Именно так и было в России: ни у одного из кандидатов, кроме Дмитрия Медведева, не было никаких шансов на победу. Чтобы выборы чуть больше походили на свободные, необходимо, чтобы очевидный фаворит тоже принимал участие в предвыборных дебатах. Он должен был проявить хотя бы минимальное уважение к соперникам и избирателям и продемонстрировать, что у всех кандидатов равные права",— размышлял господин Гросс.

Он вспомнил также, что еще осенью 2007 года около 70% россиян заявляли, что готовы проголосовать за того кандидата, на которого укажет президент Путин, и тот же процент опрошенных говорил, что не доверяет процессу выборов вообще.

В докладе, подготовленном ПАСЕ, содержится несколько предложений российским властям по изменению избирательного законодательства. Во-первых, делегаты предлагают обязать всех кандидатов в президенты участвовать в дебатах. Во-вторых, по мнению европейских парламентариев, требование собрать 2 млн подписей для того, чтобы выдвинуться в президенты, слишком жесткое, и оно автоматически отсекает от выборов представителей оппозиции. Наконец, участники ПАСЕ возмущены тем, что кандидаты имеют неравный доступ к электронным СМИ, и настаивают на том, чтобы в России было создано независимое общественное телевидение. Кстати, последнее условие является одним из основополагающих требований ПАСЕ: до тех пор, пока оно не будет создано, ассамблея не откажется от мониторинга России.

Ответ автору доклада решил дать глава российской делегации Константин Косачев. Он отметил, что в России, равно как и в Армении, Сербии и Черногории, глава государства сменился в результате демократических выборов, а не был передан по наследству, как, например, это происходит в Монако, Великобритании или Швеции.

Однако затем в дебаты вступил депутат Госдумы от КПРФ Иван Мельников, похваливший Андреаса Гросса за "объективный и хорошо обрисовывающий картину доклад". Он поддержал все требования ПАСЕ об изменении избирательных законов, добавив, что необходимо не только обязать всех кандидатов участвовать в дебатах, но и заставить телевидение показывать дебаты в удобное для зрителей время, а не в 7 утра или 11 ночи.

Представитель Германии Холгер Хайбах заявил, что "выборы в России, пусть и прошли нормально, были лишь формальностью и не соответствуют духу демократии — именно так к ним и нужно относиться". Однако, по его мнению, ПАСЕ должна не просто констатировать этот факт, но и принимать меры. Напомнив, что Россия кроме всего прочего нарушила собственное обещание ратифицировать 6-й и 14-й протоколы к Европейской конвенции по правам человека, господин Хайбах заявил, что ПАСЕ должна ответить на вопрос: "в правильном ли направлении идет Россия?" По мнению представителя Германии, "на этот вопрос можно дать только отрицательный ответ", значит, Европе следует задуматься, "как быть с огромной страной, которая не желает или не способна решить существующие проблемы". Как уже писал вчера "Ъ", в ПАСЕ начали раздаваться голоса за лишение российской делегации права голоса, если она не ратифицирует 6-й и 14-й протоколы. Очевидно, именно эту меру воздействия на Россию имел в виду и господин Хайбах.

ПАСЕ против БДИПЧ

Обсуждая прошедшие выборы в европейских странах, делегаты ПАСЕ вспомнили о конкурирующей организации, также занимающейся проблемой прав человека — Бюро по демократическим институтам и правам человека (БДИПЧ) ОБСЕ. По этой структуре, давно вызывающей раздражение Москвы, был нанесен неожиданный удар. Первым с критикой БДИПЧ выступил британский консерватор Дэвид Уилшир. Он рассказал, что во время последних президентских выборов в Черногории столкнулся с тем, что наблюдатели БДИПЧ заранее заготовили доклад о мониторинге выборов и при подготовке общего отчета не учли никаких пожеланий коллег по ПАСЕ. В итоге господин Уилшир потребовал задуматься над тем, стоит ли в дальнейшем сотрудничать с БДИПЧ.

Благодатную тему подхватил Константин Косачев. Он также решил разоблачить бюрократизм этой структуры и заодно ответить на нападки тех делегатов, которые обвиняли Россию в том, что она не пустила наблюдателей БДИПЧ на президентские выборы. По словам господина Косачева, у этой организации нет никаких прописанных критериев, в соответствии с которыми она отбирает, за какими выборами наблюдать, а за какими нет. "Все решает бюрократическая структура, куда поедет усиленная миссия, а куда ослабленная. Обычно БДИПЧ ОБСЕ направляет на разные выборы в среднем по 18 человек. Мы пригласили к себе 70 человек из этой организации. А нам было сказано, что это слишком мало",— возмущался господин Косачев.

К ПАСЕ подобных претензий у России нет, поскольку в этой организации четко прописанное правило существует: наблюдатели направляются только в те страны, которые находятся под мониторингом, поэтому, к примеру, ПАСЕ наблюдает за выборами в России и игнорирует выборы во Франции или Германии.

В итоге делегаты согласились с тем, что формат дальнейшего сотрудничества с БДИПЧ нужно тщательно обдумать.

Армянский скандал

Самый серьезный скандал вчерашнего дня был связан с обсуждением ситуации в Армении. На утренней сессии англичанин Джон Прескотт, бывший вице-премьер в правительстве Тони Блэра, представил свой доклад о прошедших в Армении президентских выборах. Он был даже менее критичным, чем отчет о выборах в России, господин Прескотт констатировал, что они в целом соответствовали стандартам Совета Европы. Недостаток критики в адрес Армении возмутил нескольких делегатов.

Венгр Золт Немет напомнил, что последствием армянских выборов стали беспорядки, в ходе которых погибли девять человек. "Совет Европы легитимизирует антидемократические действия властей Армении! Если мы не можем ни на что повлиять, ничего изменить — давайте вообще не будет посылать наблюдателей! Нам нужна фундаментальная оценка мониторинговых миссий!" — горячился он.

Входившая в состав миссии ПАСЕ в Армении шведка Мариэтта де Пурбе-Лундин эмоционально рассказала, как на ее глазах на одном из избирательных участков происходила фальсификация итогов выборов. "У меня на глазах сотни бюллетеней за Левона Тер-Петросяна были засчитаны в пользу премьер-министра Сержа Саркисяна. Члены избирательной комиссии отдавали себе отчет в том, что они делают, и их совершенно не смущало то, что я это вижу. На участке были наблюдатели от Сержа Саркисяна, которые так всех запугали,— моя переводчица просто умоляла меня не делать им никаких замечаний. Я была так расстроена, что не смогла уснуть в ту ночь",— жаловалась парламентарий.

Еще резче выступил представитель Азербайджана Самад Сеидов: "Господин Прескотт говорит, что выборы в Армении соответствовали стандартам Совета Европы. Что это такое, что это означает? Убийства людей стали стандартом Совета Европы. Здесь сказали о девятерых погибших, но забыли о людях, которые умерли в тюрьме. Никто не сказал о сотнях политзаключенных, среди которых есть депутаты армянского парламента. Почему весь мир так внимательно следит за происходящим в Тибете и не обращает внимания на беззаконие в Армении?"

Впрочем, Джон Прескотт и несколько других наблюдателей заявили, что критики армянских выборов слишком эмоциональны и предвзяты, а шокирующих нарушений в ходе президентских выборов в этой стране выявлено не было.

Впрочем, точка в этом споре так и не поставлена. Еще утром было принято решение провести в четверг срочные дебаты по ситуации в Армении. Это означает, что большинство делегатов все же не склонно соглашаться с благодушными выводами господина Прескотта. Более того, как сообщили "Ъ" в российской делегации, не исключено, что будет поднят вопрос о пересмотре и переподтверждении полномочий армянской делегации на одной из ближайших сессий ПАСЕ.

Михаил Ъ-Зыгарь

http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=882555&print=true