pressurised. Some degree of self censorship (see below) did exist according to most interviewees, yet genuine fear of pressing reprisals or interference was not apparent. The situation in Armenia is somewhat more ambiguous. Editorial offices of independent papers were destroyed, set on fire or visited by certain uninvited individuals; several journalists were beaten up. However, the authorities are most probably not responsible for these acts. It can, on the other hand, be attributed to the government that the perpetrators were never found; that nine newspapers and one news agency were closed down in conjunction with the suspension of the Dashnaktsutyun party; that the independent opposition paper Golos Armenii had continuous problems with the state printing house Periodika, which has a monopoly; and that the Director of the state TV channel was dismissed the day after the elections. These incidents illustrate the dual situation for the Armenian media. On the one hand, media outlets enjoy autonomy and immunity, and some opposition papers actually go rather far in their criticism of the government. On the other hand, the climate for the media is significantly hampered by a series of attacks and hindering activities, which, it should be mentioned, cannot all be attributed to the authorities. The situation in Azerbaijan is not quite so ambiguous. Editorial offices are regularly raided by the police and reprisals against journalists have become routine. In addition, military and political censorship have been institutionalised. Consequently, issues of opposition papers such as Azadlyg, yet also of independent quality papers like Zerkalo, regularly appear with surrogate material (or white space), or even fail to be published altogether. State television devotes the lion share of the editorial coverage to the activities of the president and his associates. The above indicates indeed a relation between the procedural violations in the course of the respective elections, and the freedom of the media to cover these elections. This, in turn, may imply that the situation of the media is indicative for the progress towards a democratic state. Regulatory framework for the media The observed interference in the media in Azerbaijan contravenes the provisions of the law on the mass media. In fact, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan all have a media law and a constitution which state freedom of speech and deem censorship impermissible. The incorporated exceptions protection of state security, social order, mores of society, slander etc. can apparently be subject to opportunistic interpretations. The legal and regulatory framework for the media coverage of the elections in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan provided free access for all parties/candidates. The broadcast media in the three republics made a clear attempt to allocate the free time equally. Although this attempt at fairness is laudable, the hours of political advertising on television and radio daily (particularly in Georgia and Azerbaijan) may have saturated the audience and induced fatigue, rather than contribute to viewers enlightenment. It is, therefore, recommendable to limit the free time to perhaps one hour a day in future elections. The free space in the state owned newspapers was allocated equally in Armenia and Georgia, yet not in Azerbaijan. The regulations governing the media coverage in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan did not contribute to even and fair reporting. The necessity of balanced coverage in newscasts, documentaries or analytical programmes was not stipulated in any of the guidelines for media coverage. The unbalanced reporting of state owned outlets combined with the dominant position of government controlled TV, indicated the importance of such guidelines (and, for that matter, the adherence to them). OSCE ODIHR Bulletin Vol. 4 No. 3 9