Armenia

In its chapter on Armenia, the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) highlighted that “since the outbreak of military hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan on 27 September 2020 and in the wake of the Trilateral Statement of 9-10 November 2021, the Monitoring Committee has closely followed the conflict and its impact on the functioning of democratic institutions and the protection of human rights in both countries. This can be illustrated by the regular joint statements of the four respective co-rapporteurs as well as by the Committee's statement on 24 April 2021 in which it expressed its conviction that the national parliaments of both countries could and should play an important role in the urgently needed confidence-building measures, the reconciliation process and the resumption of concrete peace negotiations between the parties.”

“In February 2021, following the dismissal of a high-ranking officer of the armed forces, the Armenian General Staff of the Armed Forces issued two successive statements calling for the resignation of the prime minister. These statements were interpreted as an attempted coup by the parliamentary majority and as a public statement by some opposition parties, including Bright Armenia, despite the constitutional obligation of neutrality of the armed forces. Extremely concerned by these developments, the co-rapporteurs, Ms Boriana Åberg (Sweden, EPP/CD) and Mr Kimmo Kiljunen (Finland, SOC), issued a statement in which they found, inter alia, that the initial statement ‘by the office of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, calling for the resignation of a democratically elected government, to be unacceptable.’ They called on ‘all political forces and state actors to fully respect democratic principles and the Constitution of Armenia, and to take all necessary steps to immediately de-escalate the current situation.’ Recognising that Armenia was going through a very difficult phase in its recent history, they said that it needed more than ever calm, restraint, wisdom and unwavering support from all parties concerned to uphold democratic principles in order to resolve the political crisis it was facing. Eventually, the Chief of Staff was removed from office which he challenged in the administrative court, and Prime Minister Pashinyan organised fairly massive rallies in support of the government,” document stated.

The study also added that “the Armenian authorities sought to overcome the political crisis following the defeat in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict by holding early parliamentary elections on 20 June 2021, in response to the wishes of the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition and the suggestion of some constitutional institutions. However, the government did only resign when elections were called and then remained in office as caretaker government until the elections were held, in line with legal provisions.”

The document continues by saying that “on 13 April 2021, the co-rapporteurs held discussions with Armenian experts on the political situation and the electoral challenges of these early elections. They took note of the urgent joint opinion of the Venice Commission and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) on the legislative package of 1 April amending the electoral legislation. This opinion which was generally positive stated in particular that the package was to be ‘broadly welcomed as it addressed the majority of recommendations raised in previous Venice Commission and ODIHR opinions… as well as in the final reports of the ODIHR election observation missions.’ They also insisted that the Chairman of the ad hoc Committee of the Bureau of the Assembly responsible for observing the early elections of 20 June 2021 be heard by the Monitoring Committee at its September meeting. Mr George Katrougalos presented the findings of the observation mission to the Monitoring Committee, which stated that ‘Armenia’s early parliamentary elections were competitive and well-managed within a short time frame. However, they were characterised by intense polarisation and marred by increasingly inflammatory language from key contestants, as well as by the sidelining of women throughout the campaign.’”

Azerbaijan

In the chapter on Azerbaijan, it is highlighted that “the Assembly welcomes the authorities’ declared will to conduct a dialogue but regrets that no progress has been made about the outstanding concerns in the area of pluralism and the rule of law. It deplores the lack of independence of the judiciary as illustrated by a long-standing pattern of repression of political opponents and government’s critics and confirmed by the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights. It also denounces the restrictions on basic freedoms including freedom of expression, assembly and association and calls on the authorities to undertake urgent measures with a view to improving this highly unsatisfactory situation.”

“The situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh region was closely followed by the committee during the reporting period. The committee held an exchange of views with Mr Peter Svedberg, Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Task Force for the Swedish Chairmanship of the OSCE on the implementation of the Trilateral Statement in particular with regard to the issue of prisoners of war and the committee made a statement on the subject. The rapporteurs for Armenia and Azerbaijan made a number of joint statements in reaction to the developments,” document says.

The study, which assessed political developments in eleven countries, including Azerbaijan, discussed the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. “Since the outbreak of military hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan on 27 September 2020 and in the wake of the Trilateral Statement of 9-10 November 2021, the work of the Monitoring Committee focused on the conflict and its impact on the functioning of democratic institutions and the protection of human rights in both countries. This is illustrated by regular joint statements made by four respective co-rapporteurs as well as by the Committee’s statement of 24 April 2021 in which it expressed its conviction that the national parliaments of both countries could and should play an important role in the urgently-needed confidence-building measures, the reconciliation process and the resumption of concrete peace negotiations between the parties.”

The report continues by highlighting that “in particular, the lack of independence of the justice, illustrated by a long-standing pattern of repression of the government’s opponents, is a major problem in Azerbaijan. Arbitrary arrests and detentions of government critics as confirmed by the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights and the ‘structural problem’ of misuse of administrative detention, described by the Committee of Ministers, persist. Lawyers continue to be harassed and reports of torture and other ill-treatment of government critics in detention remain widespread.”

Georgia

In its chapter on Georgia, the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) highlights the hostile and divided political atmosphere "undermining the democratic consolidation" of Georgia as a main topic of concern.

The study, which assessed political developments in eleven countries, including Georgia, also discussed the "regrettable" failure of the EU-mediated April 19 agreement and voiced concerns about weaknesses in judicial independence and impartiality.

The April 19 agreement, according to the paper, "did not stop the enormous division in the political climate in Georgia or lead to a revived feeling of constructive co-operation between the opposition and the ruling majority inside the parliament."

It also mentioned the ruling Georgian Dream party's "regrettable" departure from the accord on July 28, 2021.

However, the passage of EU-brokered electoral changes resulted in a new, more pluralist election administration for municipal elections in October 2021, as well as new measures for drafting summary protocols and resolving complaints, according to the study.

The polarisation of the political atmosphere exacerbated during the second round of municipal elections, according to the PACE study. It cited local analysts as saying that polarisation and accused abuse of administrative resources may have influenced the outcome of elections with narrow margin victory.

The report urged authorities to "examine any claims of electoral wrongdoing completely and openly" and to "take all necessary steps to guarantee that the public has faith in the election system's fairness."

The study singled out Georgia's High Council of Justice, which oversees the country's legal system, as "a fundamental hindrance to the judiciary's independence."

It claims that the HCoJ functions as a corporative body, with a small number of key judge members "able to control or influence" both the Council and the Judiciary as a whole, due to flaws in its working methods and a lack of transparency in its decision-making.

According to the research, most of these judges' rulings are based on "corporatist self-interest."

It also emphasised the HCoJ's "particularly problematic" position in lifetime Supreme Court justice nominations. The opposition, local civil society organisations, and foreign partners all questioned the process' openness and impartiality, which was repeated in the Georgian Parliament in June and finished in December.

The nominations were disappointing, according to the study, and further eroded public confidence in the Supreme Court's independence and impartiality.

The appointments were also made despite "repeated recommendations from the international community and domestic stakeholders, and on the basis of a clearly deficient appointment process – that in several aspects did not comply with international norms and standards process," according to the document.