The report on the preliminary findings and conclusions of the ODIHR ("Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights") election observation mission in Armenia has been published, presented below:

"The June 7, 2026, parliamentary elections offered a genuine choice between political alternatives. The electoral process was well-organized, despite direct external pressure observed during the campaign in the form of trade restrictions and security threats aimed at steering voters in favor of the opposition. This was stated in a preliminary statement published today by international observers.

The campaign was fraught with confrontations and divisive rhetoric. It was marked by vote-buying and other electoral violations, which led to numerous criminal prosecutions against opposition candidates and activists. As a result of all this, many opposition supporters refrained from actively participating in the campaign. The statement notes that this, along with pressure on public sector employees to participate in the ruling party's events and recently introduced social and economic restrictions, raised concerns about a level playing field for campaigning.

'The concentration of arrests and criminal prosecutions of opposition figures contributed to the perception of selective justice. At the same time, a polarized media landscape, provocative rhetoric, disinformation, and constant manifestations of external pressure and interference challenged Armenia’s democratic resilience and the integrity of public debate,' said Farah Karimi, Special Coordinator and Leader of the OSCE short-term observation mission. 'This underscores the importance of continuous efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, protect fundamental freedoms, and foster public trust in democratic processes.'

'The elections in Armenia took place in a particularly tense geopolitical context with direct foreign interference,' said Damien Cottier, Head of the delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 'In particular, pressure and threats from Russia reached an unprecedented and worrying level.'

The process was regulated by revised election-related laws and regulations, which provide a solid foundation for democratic elections. Amendments made in recent years were largely implemented through a broad consultative process and were aimed at improving the legal framework. However, some gaps and ambiguities remain, and a number of previous recommendations by ODIHR and the Council of Europe's Venice Commission remain unaddressed.

'The polarizing rhetoric during the campaign and the high stakes of these elections created a tense atmosphere for both voters and election officials,' said Evrosima Pejovic, Head of the OSCE PA delegation. 'The election authorities operated under intense scrutiny, while voters were subjected to continuous political pressure and public debates. Tensions arising from both internal and external factors increased the pressure surrounding these elections and affected public perception of the quality of election administration, highlighting the importance of fostering a constructive political atmosphere and strengthening public trust in election bodies.'

The election administration managed the technical preparations for the elections professionally and efficiently, while gaining the confidence of stakeholders. On election day, the process was assessed as overwhelmingly positive in the vast majority of polling stations observed.

'We met dedicated polling station members, most of whom were women. They performed their duties with commitment and diligence. Some voters lacked basic information about their polling stations and voting procedures. The Armenian authorities should consider providing better information to voters,' said Natalie Loiseau, Head of the European Parliament delegation. 'The elections were generally peaceful and without major incidents. The voting process was calm and very well-organized. Procedures appeared to be meticulously followed, and minor discrepancies before the count were carefully checked.'

The online campaign was extensive and its regulation was limited, which reduced transparency and oversight. The online campaign was confrontational and divisive. The ODIHR mission noted the presence of manipulative, false, and artificial intelligence-generated content distributed by some candidates. At the same time, this involved the use of fake and third-party accounts to discredit opponents, the government, and the electoral process. Overall, the authorities took steps to combat disinformation. However, the transparency and effectiveness of these efforts were limited by a lack of publicly available information.

Changes to campaign finance rules expanded the definition of campaign expenses, increased donation and spending limits, and redistributed oversight functions. Nevertheless, the existence of a number of loopholes restricting the transparency, accountability, and integrity of funding for several parties and campaigns remains notable.

Despite gender quotas for the election administration and parliament, as well as financial incentives for parties in bodies maintaining gender balance, women's participation in public and political life remains low. Women accounted for 37.3 percent of the candidates.

The media environment is pluralistic but polarized. ODIHR mission media monitoring revealed that most media outlets used mutual insults to amplify the divisive campaign rhetoric. At the same time, the media offered little substantive analysis of the election programs of competing forces. Public television showed a clear bias in favor of the ruling party, contrary to its legal obligations and public mandate. Meanwhile, several private media outlets covered the government negatively and provided favorable coverage for selected opposition candidates. Together, all of this limited the ability of voters to make an informed choice.

'Although often in a highly polarized campaign, Armenian voters were given the opportunity to make a viable and pluralistic choice in a professionally managed electoral process, and they took advantage of it,' said Janesz Lenarčič, Head of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights election observation mission. 'Unfortunately, they were forced to make that choice under conditions of unprecedented external interference and pressure, facing punitive trade restrictions and daily threats conditioned by the results of their choice.'"