OPINION
of the members of Expert Group under Central Election (Referendum) Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan established with the aim of investigating the complaints of actions (inactions) and decisions that violate citizens’ suffrage
on investigating the joint complaint by the authorized representatives of “Republicans” and “Movement for Garabagh and Republic” referendum campaign groups, Tofig Yagublu and Hasan Kerimov related to Referendum held on 18 March 2009
Baku city 29 March 2009 ,saat 20.00
The authorized representatives of “Republicans” and “Movement for Garabagh and Republic” referendum campaign groups, Tofig Yagublu and Hasan Kerimov jointly appealed to Central Election (Referendum) Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan in written form and informed that there were law violations in some election (referendum) precincts on the voting day and they asked for taking activities defined by law.
As the complaint was legally compiled pursuant to Election Code and “Instruction on the rules for submitting complaints an appeals related to violating suffrage to Central Election Commission and Constituency Election Commissions and considering them”, it was accepted to investigation.
In the process of investigation, authorized representatives Tofig Yagublu and Hasan Kerimov were kept contact with and informed on their rights to participate in investigation. H.Kerimov informed that he had not any other additional evidences to present apart from the information provided. And T.Yagublu took part in the investigation process of the complaint.
The cases asserted to have been committed in the acts submitted on the complaint mainly consist of taking the voters by force to the polling stations in mass, attendance of the police not at the distance of 100 m, but much nearer, not inspecting the voters’ fingers with invisible ultraviolet lamps or sometimes not correctly inspecting pursuant to Instruction, forming obstacles for the observers to be familiarized with the voters’ lists, not marking the voters’ fingers during the voting, issuing more than one ballot paper to a voter, casting ballot papers in allot boxes by the commission members, casting more than one ballot paper by the voters, being more than a voter in the voting booth during the voting, directing voters by the commission members and other people on how to vote, facilitating the person whose name has not been included in the voters’ list to vote, voting of the people without the relevant ID card, enabling the voters to re-vote, voting of a voter in several precincts, obstacle the observation during vote count, not providing the interested people with the final protocol on the voting results, quickly filling the ballot boxes in spite of weak voter turnout, interference of the unauthorized people in election process, attendance of the officials of different bodies to the voting in the form of group, illegal campaigning on the voting day.
I conducted investigation related to the entered complaint. At the result of the investigation it was found out that 77 acts out of the acts on 180 observations submitted on the complaint were not compiled pursuant to legislation. The fact was also verified by T.Yagublu who participated in the investigation and the act was compiled jointly with him by me. The shortcomings included in these acts were mainly mismatch of the date of act compiling with the date of conducting referendum (for ex: 13 May 2006, 18 May 2009, amendments which don’t fit in dates), signing of different people in the name of a person, not violating the rights defined by legislation, keeping the act not filled out and so on.
Pursuant to decision by the Central Election Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan (CEC), the investigation period was extended in accordance with the opinion provided by me in the aim of ensuring comprehensiveness and fairness of the investigation.
At the same time, as the investigation on the copies of final protocols on a part of the voting results is within the competence of the relevant election (referendum) commissions pursuant to Election Code and the relevant Instruction, they were sent to these commissions.
The investigation was continued on 103 acts.
So, 4 acts for the precincts # 14, 27 and 33 on Binagadi first Con.EC # 8;
1 act for the precincts # 13, 14 and 30 on Binagadi second Con.EC # 9;
2 acts for the precincts # 16 and 28 on Binagadi third Con.EC # 10;
10 acts for the precincts # 5, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23 and 29 on Garadagh Con.EC # 8;
5 acts for the precincts # 2, 5, 7, 10, 13 on Azizbayov first Con.EC # 14;
4 acts for the precincts # 1, 2, 25 on Yasaml second Con.EC # 16;
7 acts for the precincts # 17, 18, 21, 22, 30 on Yasamal third Con.EC # 17;
2 acts for the precincts # 8, 9 on Nasimi first Con.EC # 21;
4 acts for the precincts # 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, 26 on Nasimi-Sabail Con.EC # 23;
2 acts for the precincts # 11, 26 on Nizami second Con.EC # 25;
1 act for the precincts # 25 on Sabail Con.EC # 29;
12 acts for the precincts # 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 31, 32, 33, 34 on Khatai second Con.EC # 34;
2 acts for the precincts # 11, 14, 26 on Khatai third Con.EC # 35;
4 acts for the precincts # 13, 14, 30, 33, 34 on Sumgayit first Con.EC # 41;
6 acts for the precincts # 7, 8, 27 on Sumgayit second Con.EC # 42;
5 acts for the precincts # 13, 23, 25, 26 on Sumgayit third Con.EC # 43;
2 acts for the precincts # 23, 24 on Absheron Con.EC # 45;
7 acts for the precincts # 3, 4,5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 on Yevlakh Con.EC # 48;
3 acts for the precincts # 21, 22, 25 on Yevlakh-Mingachevir Con.EC # 49;
5 acts for the precincts # 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 19 on Sabiarabad first Con.EC # 63;
9 acts for the precincts # 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19 on Imishli Con.EC # 79;
3 acts for the precincts # 2, 3, 4, 5, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31 on Imishli-Beylahan Con.EC # 80;
3 acts for the precincts # 4, 8, 1, 19, 22 on Lachin Con.EC # 121.
33 out of 103 acts on observation which were object of investigation on the appeal during investigation process, as well as
2 acts for the precincts # 27, 33 on Binagadi first Con.EC # 8;
1 act for Azizbayov first Con.EC # 13;
1 act1 for the precinct # 13 on Azizbayov second Con.EC # 14;
2 acts for the precinct # 2 on Yasamal Con.EC # 16;
2 acts for the precinct # 26 on Khatai third Con.EC # 35;
5 acts for the precincts # 7, 8 on Sumgayit second Con.EC # 42;
6 acts for the precincts # 2, 12, 13 on Sumgayit-Absheron Con.EC # 44;
5 acts for the precincts # 3, 4, 10, 16, 17 on Yevlakh Con.EC # 48;
1 act for the precinct # 19 on Sairabad first Con.EC # 63;
2 acts for the precinct # 6 on Lankaran village Con.EC # 74;
2 acts for the precincts # 13, 21 on Lankaran-Masalli Con.EC # 75;
1 act for the precinct # 8 on Imishli Con.EC # 79;
1 act for the precinct # 39 on Aghdam Con.EC # 118;
2 acts for the precincts # 16, 22 on Lahin Con.EC # 121
were compiled falsely in the name of these people without observing by the observer.
The above-mentioned facts were approved by the explanations of the people on determination and exclusions from the register books of observers.
It was defined that other part of the acts were signed only by a part of the people though they had been compiled by several people.
Meanwhile, related to some acts on observation, S.Fermanov on the precinct # 15 of Imishli Con.EC # 79, Etibar Avaz oghlu Zulfugarov on the precinct # 10 of this Con.EC, S.Mirzeyev on the precinct # 13 of Azizbayov second Con.EC # 14 submitted explanations on the fact that they had not signed these acts and the act did not conclude the truth on the cases mentioned.
22 compiled and signed acts on observation, as well as
2 acts for the precinct # 14 on Binagadi first Con.EC # 8;
1 act for the precinct # 9 on Naasimi first Con.EC # 21;
1 act for the precinct # 5 on Nasimi-Sabail Con.EC # 23;
1 act for the precinct # 25 on Surakhani second Con.EC # 31;
1 act for the precinct # 17 on Khatai first Con.EC # 33;
1 act for the precinct # 5 on Khatai fourth Con.EC # 36;
1 act for the precinct # 23 on Sumgait third Con.EC # 43;
1 act for the precinct # 3 on Absheron-Sumgayit Con.EC # 44;
2 acts for the precincts # 7, 12 on Yevlakh Con.EC # 48;
3 acts for the precincts # 21, 22, 25 on Yevlakh-Miingachevir Con.EC # 49;
4 acts for the precincts # 1, 4, 6, 14 on Sabirabad first Con.EC # 63;
4 acts for the precincts # 2, 3, 4, 7 on Jalilabad city Con.EC # 67;
2 acts for Imishli Con.EC # 79;
2 acts for the precincts # 1, 2 on Jalilabad village Con.EC # 68 were compiled by adding the names of the people who did not observe in the polling stations, therefore, these acts were falsely compiled and signed.
The above-mentioned facts were approved by the explanations of the people on determination and exclusions from the register books of observers.
At the result of generalization conducted on the above-mentioned facts, it was possible to continue the investigation on only 45 acts on 103 observations which were object of investigation, as well as on
2 acts for Binagadi second Con.EC # 9;
2 acts for Binagadi third Con.EC # 10;
5 acts for Garadagh Con.EC #11;
2 acts for Yasamal second Con.EC # 16;
5 acts for Yasamal third Con.EC # 17;
2 acts for Nasimi first Con.EC # 21;
2 acts for Nizami second Con.EC # 25;
2 acts for Sabunchu third Con.EC # 26;
1 act for Sabail Con.EC # 29;
6 acts for Khatai second Con.EC # 34;
2 acts for Sumgayit first Con.EC # 41;
1 act for Sumgayit second Con.EC # 42;
3 acts for Sumgayit third Con.EC # 43;
2 acts for Sumgayit-Absheron Con.EC # 44;
2 acts for Yevlakh Con.EC # 48;
2 acts for Yevlakh-Mingachevir Con.EC # 49;
2 acts for Imishli-Beylagan Con.EC # 80;
2 acts for Jalilabad city Con.EC # 67.
So, there supposed that more than 2/3 part of the observation acts compiled on the received complaint were compiled falsely.
In regard with the mentioned cases, explanations were received from the participants of election process, as well as from chairmen of election commissions, their members, observers, representatives of police bodies, voters whose coming to the voting was asserted to be by force in relation to the relevant organization on acts.
Investigation was conducted as follows related to suffrage violation asserted in the observation acts entered based n the complaint on concrete constituencies:
Irregularities claimed on Binagadi second Con.EC # 9 consist of ballot stuffing, multiple voting, voting of the people whose names have not been included in the voters’ lists. These facts were disproved by the explanations of the PEC chairmen, as well as by the reference of the Con.EC and ANS TV and radio company broadcasted reportage on some polling stations on this constituency, not any law violation was informed to have been allowed. Furthermore, no one of 17 people who conducted observation did not appeal to the PEC orally or in written in regard with the precincts mentioned in the acts on the Con.EC. The people who signed the act left the polling station at 13.30. The case was approved by the provided explanations and acts.
Irregularities claimed on Binagadi third Con.EC # 10 consist of discovering ballot papers double tied and put inside one another when opening ballot boxes, multiple voting. The indicated facts were negated by the explanations submitted by the PEC chairman, commissioners and even a number of observers who were in this precinct, there was not found out any irregularity with the number of the voters participated approving this.
Irregularities claimed on Garadagh Con.EC # 11 consist of taking the voters by force to the polling stations in mass, not inspecting the voters’ fingers on one case, low voter turnout, illegal campaigning on Election Day. The explanations received from the people on determination included that these observers who compiled the act had been in the relevant polling stations for only 10, 30 and sometimes for 5 minutes. In regard with taking citizens to the precinct by bus in mass, the explanation by the commission chairman concluded that it is impossible for large auto transportation means to enter the area of the indicated precinct and therefore, this person can’t observe the case. In regard with another case, the explanation by the precinct member negated the fact of not inspecting voters’ fingers. Apart from these, the regular information of the PEC on turnout disproves this.
Involving students to the voting, allowing the students whose names have not been included in the voters’ lists to vote without de-registration card, in regard with one case, attendance of 5 voters for the period from 14.00 till16.00 were indicated as irregularities claimed on Yasamal second Con.EC # 16. During the investigation it was defined that web-camera was installed in the indicated precinct and these cases were not registered. In this precinct, 20 people voted with de-registration cards. International observers, as well as delegation CIS and 2 observers from PACE conducted observation in the precinct and they did not express their comments on any law violation. According to the observers’ register book, Marif Ayaz oghlu Aghamammadov who signed the current act observed till 15.00 in the precinct and it results that the incidents indicated by him after this time doesn’t match with reality. During looking through the voters’ lists it was defined that only the people include in the register (excluding the people who voted with de-registration cards) in this precinct participated in the voting and this fact negates remarks on illegal participation of students in the voting.
Irregularities claimed on Yasamal third Con.EC # 17 are the cases of not counting ballot papers before commencing elections, brutality of the PEC chairman to observers, voting of some voters with an international passport, not marking the relevant finger of a voter and inspecting it with the relevant apparatus. It was defined by the explanations and submitted evidences (as type of evidence, exclusions from the register books of local observers) that
some observers indicated in the act compiled on the current precinct did not observe in this precinct. The voter was explained pursuant to legislation only upon his/her own request if there was any need. As web-camera was installed in the indicated precinct, these cases were not registered to have been committed.
Irregularities claimed on Nasimi first Con.EC # 21 consist of interference of Communal Utility Service officials in election process, mass participation of the students of Asian University in the voting, multiple voting, participation of pupils in the voting, voting of 2 people in one voting booth, voting of the people without de-registration cards, not allowing to be familiarized with voting lists. The submitted explanations indicated that 15 people voted with de-registration cards. Web-camera functioned in the mentioned precinct, as well and not any law violation was registered via camera. 2 people used the help of other ones pursuant to Election Code as they were unable to exercise their rights to vote for physical reasons and the voters’ list contained the relevant note on this. During examining voters’ lists there was not defined that any one not registered in this precinct (excluding the people who voted with de-registration cards) and aged 18 voted on Election Day. Voters’ lists were hung on the entrance for familiarization. No one from 22 observers who observed in the precinct expressed their remarks on law violations.
Irregularities claimed on Nasimi-Sabail Con.EC # 23 are the cases of not counting ballot papers before opening the precinct, not allowing the observers to observe, interference of Communal Utility Service officials in election process, taking a group of voters to the polling station by bus. Pursuant to legislation, ballot papers shall be counted not before opening the precinct, but before commencing the voting in the polling station. The relevant explanation also contained that they behaved in this manner. And the people presented as Communal Utility Service were observers conducting observation and this fact was approved by the card which belong to the observers who compiled the act as they stated.
Irregularities claimed on Nizami second Con.EC # 25 are the remarks on voting without de-registration card, issuing ballot papers to the people without ID card, casting ballot papers by the commission members, leaving the polling station by the commission member in one case, taking the voters to the polling stations by bus. It was defined through investigation conducted in relation to the explanations and remarks received from the people on determination that the people without de-registration cards and who did not present ID cards were not provided with ballot papers. This has found its proof via the registration in voters’ lists. The observer who claimed that the voters had been taken to the voting by force in the precinct # 9 conducted observation in the precinct # 11. This fact was proved by observers’ register book. Another contradiction was taking voters to the precinct by force by bus though one can not see outdoors from the voting room. If considering that the observation was conducted only in the voting room, then the fact doesn’t find its proof. And as leaving the precinct by commissioner Konul Bayramova on the voting day doesn’t match with her signing the final protocol on the voting results, the fact isn’t real.
Irregularities claimed on Sabunchu first Con.EC # 26 are the cases of incorrectness of the voters’ number who have voted, casting additional ballot papers y the commissioner members. In the precinct, the number of voters include in the voters’ list was 1409 people, 612 unused ballot papers were canceled based on the act (as sample of evidence, act was submitted). Web-camera operated in the indicated precinct. Not any irregularity was recorded via the camera. The election process was followed by 3 international observers from France Parliament and they did not express any remark on this. The explanations provided by the members of the precinct negated the remarks against them.
Irregularities claimed on Sabail Con.EC # 29 are voting of a person for family members, low voter turnout after 14.00 in one case, voting of 226 though in the voters’ list there were 1316 voters, ballot stuffing. The submitted explanations did not prove the facts on family voting, ballot stuffing. In regard with another case, it was defined that the number of the people who voted on the voters’ lists coincide with the number of the ballot papers taken from the ballot boxes.
Irregularities claimed on Khatai second Con.EC # 34 consist of ballot stuffing, casting ballot papers in boxes by the observers. According to the explanations submitted by the PEC, elections were observed by 19 observers and they did not allow such cases to be committed. 1382 people were registered on the voters’ list, the number of the voters who got allot papers was 887 and 887 allot papers were there when opening the ballot boxes (excluding the movable ballot boxes and the people who voted with de-registration cards). While looking through the voters’ lists, the relevant information before the name and surname of each voter was proved to have been fully indicated.
Irregularities claimed on Sumgayit first Con.EC # 41 consist of voting of a person for another one, attempting to vote by the voter whose name has not been included in the voters’ list. It was defined by the received explanations that this person has been included in the voters’ list with her maternity surname and only after proving this fact, the voter was allowed to vote. Another case was proved not to have been committed. The observer just informs on this, but this can not be valued as irregularity pursuant to legislation.
Irregularities claimed on Sumgayit third Con.EC # 43 are illegal interference of Sh.Allahverdiyeva, representative of “Umid” Party at the PEC # 13 in elections, 805 ballot papers were in ballot boxes while 548 people came as to the observation. It was defined at the result of investigation that R.ISmayilov who compiled the act had been in the precinct for only 2 hours. The explanation provided by Sh.Allahverdiyeva concluded that R.Ismayilov suggested to help him on law violation as they both represented “Umid” Party, but he got rejection. In this case, the observer wrote lie information on R.Ismayilov. it was found out that the number of the people who voted on the voters’ lists coincided with the number of the ballot papers in ballot boxes.
Irregularities claimed on Sumgayit-Absheron Con.EC # 44 are the cases of not following the process of issuing ballot papers to the voters, in one case, voting of the person who has not been registered in the precinct, not marking the fingers of some voters with invisible ink, multiple voting, ballot stuffing, according to the observation, mismatch of the number of the ballot papers in ballot boxes. Besides receiving explanations from the commission members and chairman in order to ensure the fairness of the investigation in regard with the case, several observers who observed in this precinct also provided explanations. All these explanations concluded that there was no ground for the claimed irregularities. Even in one case, international observer Jan Pol Murman (Belgium) also observed in the precinct where law violation was asserted to have been committed and he did not express any remark on any violation. In another case, Mukhtar Ismayil oghlu Hajiyev who signed the act on observation was not registered in the register book of local observers and did not attend the current precinct.
Irregularities claimed on Yevlakh Con.EC # 48 are the cases of multiple voting, not marking the fingers of the voters who got ballot papers with ink. The observers who compiled the act were not registered in the register book of observers in this PEC and this fact was not proved by the explanations of the people on determination (the approved copy of the register book is presented as evidence sample). The indicated cases did not find their proof by the explanations of the people on determination and investigation conducted on the voters’ lists.
Irregularities claimed on Yevlakh-Mingachevir Con.EC # 49 are voting of the voter for another voter. There was not any notes in the register book in the mentioned precincts on one of the observers who signed the act, Dilshad Isgenderli. Another observer Rovshan Huseynov left the precinct without stating any remarks after a short time. These facts found their proof by the exclusions from the register book and explanations of the other group of observers.
Irregularities claimed on Jalilabad city Con.EC # 67 consist of interference of the officials of some local state bodies, not allowing the observers to observe. Web-camera was installed in the mentioned precinct and not any law violation was recorded via camera. According to the explanations of the PEC chairman, members and observers, the above-mentioned cases were disproved. Interference of the official of any state body was not recorded by the mentioned subjects.
Irregularities claimed on Imishli-Beylagan Con.EC # 80 are counting of ballot papers without the participation of observers, not marking the fingers of the voters with invisible ink, interference of the village executive authority in elections. In order to discover the reality of the mentioned cases, explanations were gathered from the people on determination, a group of observers. The observers stated that vote counting was conducted by their participation and they did not observe not marking the voters’ fingers. The village executive representative stated that the remark against him has not any ground, he only participated in the voting as a voter on Election Day. It was defined as well that the number of the voters who voted are equal to the number of the ballot papers.
The reality of a part of the acts on observation caused doubt and supposed to be false. Therefore, it was regarded advisable to investigate these acts in the relevant prosecutor’s office.
By generalizing the facts defined at the result of investigation, pursuant to Articles 112, 112-1 of Election Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan and tems 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of “Instruction on the rules for submitting complaints an appeals related to violating suffrage to Central Election Commission and Constituency Election Commissions and considering them”, I came to conclusion:
1. The complaint shall not be implemented because of groundlessness.
2. As the reality of a part of the acts on observation caused doubt and supposed to be false, they shall be sent to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
3. The opinion shall be published within 24 hours since adoption (it shall be posted on CEC web-site) and its copy shall be sent to the complainer.
Members of Central Election (Referendum) Commission
Ramiz Ibrahimov
Gabil Orujov
Emin Guliyev
Valida Kazimova
Tofig Hasanov
Rafig Abbasov
Rovshan Ismayilov
Nizami Nadirov
Irada Hajiyeva
|
