24.03.2026 | 23:32
Armenian NGOs Warn Vardanyan’s Political Past Threatens Constitutional Court Independenc
Constitutional Court to deliver ruling today
17.07.2021 | 13:30
The Constitutional Court is supposed to deliver a ruling by the end of the day in the dispute over the outcome of the June 20 snap parliamentary elections. It is not known yet when the ruling will be announced.
CC spokeswoman Yeva Tovmasyan told Factor.am that they will inform about it two hours in advance.
The Supreme Court may rule either to leave the election results unchanged, or to declare them invalid, or to declare them invalid and to establish a new procedure for recognizing mandates, or to declare them invalid and appoint a second round of elections.
The trial for disputing the results of the snap elections began in the Constitutional Court on July 9. After listening to the speeches of the plaintiff for six days, the chairman of the Constitutional Court, Arman Dilanyan, announced that the court was leaving for the deliberation room to make a decision.
The Armenia and I Have Honor blocs, the Zartonk National Christian Party and the Armenian Homeland Party dispute the results of the elections. They filed their claims with the Court on July 2. The Armenia bloc led by former president Robert Kocharyan filed a 12-point claim regarding 109 polling stations with about 88,000 votes, of which 4,000, according to the bloc members, lack signatures in the voter lists.
The I Have Honor bloc, which received about 66,000 voters and seven mandates, claim that administrative resources were used, that military were instructed how to vote, among other irregularities.
According to Zartonk, the main principles of suffrage enshrined in the Constitution have been violated: freedom and equality․
The claim filed by the Armenian Homeland party referred only to the recognition of the election results as invalid.
The Court decided to combine the four claims and examine them in one court process. The Central Electoral Commission was involved in the trial as a respondent, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Police and the Television and Radio Commission were involved as co-defendants. The Civil Contract party was involved as a third party on its own application.
