Parliamentary Assembly Assembl�e parlementaire

---

Ad hoc Committee to observe the Presidential election in the Russian Federation (14 March 2004)

Doc. 10150
26 April 2004

Report
Bureau of the Assembly
Rapporteur: Mr Rudolf Bindig, Germany, Socialist Group

---

I.          Introduction

1.         In accordance with existing Guidelines for observation of elections by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and in response to the invitation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the Bureau of the Assembly decided on 12 January 2004 to set up an ad hoc Committee of 10 members to observe the presidential election in Russia and appointed Mr Rudolf Bindig (SOC, Germany) as Head of the delegation and Rapporteur of this Committee.

2.         Following the proposals of the political groups, the ad hoc Committee was composed of:

Mr Rudolf BINDIG Germany (SOC)
Mr Jean-Marie LE GUEN France (SOC)
Mrs Anna CURDOVA Czech Republic (SOC)
Mr Francisco ARNAU Spain (SOC)
Mr Andrea RIGONI Italy (EPP)
Mr David ATKINSON United Kingdom (EDG)
Mr Doros CHRISTODOULIDES Cyprus (UEL)
Mr Jir� MAŠT�LKA Czech Republic (UEL)

Mr Dronov, Mr Sich, Ms Kostenko and Mr Macdonald provided secretarial support to the ad hoc Committee.

3.         The ad hoc Committee conducted its observation mission from 11 to 15 March 2004. (The programme of the visit is reproduced in the Appendix 2.) At its meeting on 11 March it decided on the deployment plan for the observation of elections in Moscow and St. Petersburg.

4.         The Assembly delegation was part of the International Election Observation Mission and was working in close co-operation with the OSCE/ODIHR. The ad hoc Committee was the only parliamentary delegation to observe the presidential election in the Russian Federation. The Joint Press Statement was presented by the Head the PACE delegation, OSCE/ODIHR Director and Head of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission at a joint press conference held on 15 March 2004 at 2 pm (Appendix 3).

5.         The ad hoc Committee held meetings with two candidates competing in these elections, Mrs Khakamada and Mr Malyshkin and campaign managers of other candidates. It also met the Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission, the leadership of OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission, Ambassador Hofstee (Netherlands), representing the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, Ambassador Wright, Head of the European Commission Office in Moscow, Ambassador Justin Harman (Ireland), representing the Chairmanship of the European Council,  and the representatives of NGO’s, as well as a cross-section of intellectuals and media personalities.

II.         Election campaign

6.         The Presidential Election Law (PEL) and the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights Law provided the legal framework for the presidential elections, laying down conditions for the transparency in the organisation and conduct of the election.

7.         Nevertheless, the requirement to collect 2 million signatures (with not more than 50 000 coming from any one subject of the Federation) for submission to the CEC in support of persons seeking registration as candidates was considered by the observers as “an unreasonable hurdle”.

8.         The CEC registered seven candidates, two of them were nominated by State Duma parties, by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) and five self-nominated candidates.  

9.         Two nominees withdrew their nominations. Another nominee, Viktor Gerashchenko, attempted to claim automatic registration but this was refused, as his nominating party, the Party of Russia’s Regions, was only a constituent part of the Homeland bloc, which was represented in the State Duma, and not a State Duma party in its own right. The CEC rejected the nomination of German Sterligov on grounds that documentation submitted by his nomination group was not in conformity with the election legislation. He lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court against the rejection of his documentation, but his appeal was turned down on 9 January.

10.        The Russian Constitution stipulates that in a presidential election, if the turn-out is less than 50%, a new round has to be held, with candidates registering anew. This clause raised concerns of authorities on voters turnout and a massive campaign encouraging people to participate in elections had been launched by the CEC and local authorities. In some regions, local authorities overused their power to force people to take part in the elections. As it was claimed by Mr Zyuganov, the leader of the Communist Party, that in Khabarovsk, doctors had been instructed not to accept patients in hospitals without an absentee voting certificate. He also claimed that in Mordovia, the governor had sent a letter to all administrative bodies ordering to vote for the incumbent. Opposition politicians from both right and left and civil society representatives supported those claims.

11.        In response to the criticism expressed by the IEOM following the parliamentary elections in 2003 regarding the practices of open voting, family voting and shortcomings in counting the ballots, the CEC revised information materials to precinct election commissions (PECs) clarifying all aspects of election procedure. A special training programme for the members of PECs and TECs (Territorial Election Commissions) was organised by the CEC.

12.        The election campaign in general was low-key and all but invisible, which could be explained by the predictability of the results of the election.  Some candidates organised visits to the regions, but very few resources were committed to advertising and campaigning taking onto account the dominant position of incumbent. Many simultaneous electoral contests were held in many parts of the country and the interest to municipal elections among population was much more important.

13.        The International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) has received several complaints that administrative resources were involved in the collection of signatures for the incumbent’s registration.

14.        During the meeting of the ad hoc Committee with Mrs Dubejkovskaja, Mr Glazyev’s campaign manager, serious allegations were made regarding the use of administrative resources against their candidate by preventing his campaigning in the regions. Presidential candidate Ms Khakamada also claimed that local authorities were instructed to hamper her meetings with voters.

III.        The Media

15.        The main criticism of the PACE delegation that observed the parliamentary elections in Russia on 7 December 2003 concerned the lack of a strong and independent media which could provide a balanced coverage of the campaign as well as strong domination of State-owned or State-controlled TV stations with nation-wide coverage which “failed to demonstrate impartiality in political reporting”. [1] The Assembly recommended conducting “further reforms for the independence of the media in Russia, in particular putting into place an independent public broadcasting system that would be free of State influence and control and not subject to manipulation by other vested interests.”[2]

16.        During the presidential election the IEOM concluded that state-controlled media had displayed clear bias in favour of the incumbent in news presentation and coverage of the campaign. The authorities failed to take adequate corrective action.[3] Both the PACE delegation and the ODIHR re-iterated the need for independent public television.

17.        Our IEOM Partner, the OSCE/ODIHR mission, monitored the media coverage of the election and concluded that the State media failed to meet its legal obligation to provide equal treatment to all candidates. The decision of the incumbent to refrain from participation in televised debates among candidates and not to use the free airtime, although consistent with existing legislation, prevented other candidates addressing questions and comments to him on his performance as the incumbent President and created a lack of democratic environment in the campaign.

18.        According to the independent media monitors, the presidential election in 2004, as compared to the previous elections in 2000, meant a deplorable step towards further degradation and discrediting elections as an institute of democracy. While in the election campaign 2000 less than one third of the total airtime was allotted to Mr Putin, four years later that share increased by almost 50%.[4]

19.        The election legislation provides for equal free air-time for all candidates. However, when meeting the candidates to the presidency and their representatives the ad hoc Committee received complaints concerning the extensive coverage of Mr Putin as well as pressures from administration on the mass media forcing them to limit their coverage in favour of the incumbent. Ms Khakamada claimed that under the pressure of the authorities the NTV channel, after sending her a price-list for participation in televised debates, suddenly decided against broadcasting the debates. Ms Khakamada and Mr Kharitonov complained to the CEC on the extensive broadcasting of Mr Putin’s meeting with his proxies, which exceeded the time limit usually given to a report of campaign events. Mr Glazev’s representatives also complained that their candidate had not been provided with an equal amount of time for campaigning. His television spots were not broadcasted on the State-controlled TV channel at a scheduled time. A lot of damaging materials concerning the incumbent’s rivals was made public by the media.

20.        The private broadcasters monitored by the IEOM provided a more balanced and diverse coverage of the election campaign, giving both positive and negative information on the candidates. Nevertheless, Mr Putin received a record number of hours of prime time news coverage. The IEOM monitors were also concerned that regional journalists were basically not involved in covering the presidential election. The regional State-controlled and private broadcasters were biased in favour of the incumbent.

21.        All candidates and their campaign managers, including Mr Kozak, Mr Putin’s campaign manager, demonstrated full support to the Assembly’s recommendation to put in place an independent public broadcasting system. I sincerely hope that the promise by Mr Kozak in his capacity as Mr Putin’s representative  to introduce a new law on the mass media right after the elections will be implemented as soon as possible and this law should take into account all recommendations regarding the improvement of the freedom of expression in the Russian Federation.

IV.        Election day

22.        The ad hoc Committee split into 6 teams. Each team visited from 10 to 15 polling stations and observed the opening of polling stations, the voting and the vote count. The overall impression on the conduct of the voting was positive and the polling was organised in a calm and orderly manner.

23.        Credit should be given to the election administration which ensured security and professional conduct of the voting process.

24.        However, some irregularities were observed by the members of the ad hoc Committee during the election day. Regrettably, the practice of family voting and open voting which had been reported by the PACE election observation mission during the parliamentary elections was also widely spread during the presidential election. Despite improvements as compared to the Duma elections, open booths were still used in some polling stations, which was explained by the local commissions’ chairpersons as a well established practice regulated by the CEC.  It should be recommended in the future to avoid this practice and to use the polling booths which ensure the secrecy of the voting process.

25.        For the first time in the electoral practice in Russia, scanning machines for automatic delivery of ballots were installed in 1 000 polling stations in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Unfortunately, the use of those machines failed to guarantee invisibility of voter’s choice.

26.        Observers reported several problems during the procedure of vote counting and tabulation, including one case of manipulating supplementary voting lists to carry out ballot box stuffing.

27.        In certain parts of the country where the simultaneous electoral contests had been held, the election administration was overburdened by work which resulted in certain shortcomings and irregularities.

29.        According to the information given by the Chairman of the Central Election Commission, in the North Causasus republics of Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Dagestan, Chechnya and North Ossetia, the turnout was more than 90%. Mr Putin received 98,2 % of the vote in Ingushetia, 96,5 % in Kabardino-Balkaria, 94,6 % in Dagestan, 92,3% in Chechnya and 91,25% in North Ossetia. Taking into account that the general turnout of the election was only 64, 39%, the election results in these regions seem to be unusually high and one-sided. Results of the vote, by region, are reproduced in Appendix 4.

V.         Results of the elections

30.        According to the announcement of Mr Veshnyakov, Chairmen of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin has won Russia’s presidential election by 71,31 % of the vote.  64, 39% of the electorate took part in the elections.

31.        Communist party candidate Mr Kharitonov obtained 13,69%, Mr Glazyev, a self-nominated candidate, received 4,1 %, Ms Khakamada had 3,84 %. Liberal Democratic Party candidate Mr Malyshkin, has 2,02 % of the vote. Mr Mironov, Speaker of the Federation Council gathered 0,75 of the vote. In a show of defiance, 3,45 % of voters voted against all candidates (see appendix 4).

VI.        Conclusions and recommendations

32.        The ad hoc Committee concluded that the elections were generally well administrated and reflected the consistently high public approval rating of the incumbent president but lacked elements of a genuine democratic contest.

33.        The presidential election of 15 March 2004 showed a considerable improvement in the organisation of the electoral process. The efforts of the Central Election Commission in improving the organisation of the election were welcomed by the ad hoc Committee. Nevertheless, the CEC failed to protect the rights of all candidates to exercise their campaigning freely and to take necessary measures to prevent bias in the State-owned and State-controlled media.

34.        The ad hoc Committee stressed also the necessity to change the threshold of 2 million signatures to be collected in support of persons seeking registration as candidates, as it created certain malpractices linked to the difficulties in verifying the authenticity of signatures.

35.        As regards the voting process, although the conduct of the voting was positively assessed by the international observers, Assembly recommendations on the improvement of the secrecy of vote were not entirely taken into account by election officials. Numerous cases of open voting were witnessed by the members of the ad hoc Committee. The violation of the secrecy of the vote in a high proportion of polling stations did not meet an appropriate response of the members of election commissions. The ad hoc Committee recommends replacing open booths by the adequately closed booths which would enhance the secrecy of choice of voters.

36.        In view of what seems to be unusual election results in the North Caucasian regions of the Russian Federation in comparison to general turnout, the ad hoc Committee requests the Secretariat to ask the OSCE/ODIHR to provide clarifications on the procedure and conditions of obtaining such results.

37.        The ad hoc Committee expresses its main concerns regarding the independence of the media and the absence of the democratic pluralism during the election campaign. The Russian media failed to provide a fair and objective coverage of the election campaign. The major part of the airtime and newspaper pages devoted to elections was accorded to the incumbent President. The refusal of President Putin to participate in open democratic debates, although in conformity with law, is seen by the members of the ad hoc Committee as a step back in the democratic environment in the country.

38.        Through reforming the State-controlled media system towards the creation of an independent public broadcasting system, the Russian authorities could prove their commitments to the democratic principle of the freedom of expression. The ad hoc Committee calls for the introduction of independent public television in Russia with no further delay.

Appendix 1

AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE OBSERVATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
(14 March 2004)

COMMISSION AD HOC SUR L’OBSERVATION DE L’ELECTION PRESIDENTIELLE EN FEDERATION DE RUSSIE
(14 mars 2004)

socialist group (SOC)
groupe socialiste (SOC)
Mr Rudolf BINDIG Germany / Allemagne
Mr Jean-Marie LE GUEN France
Mrs Anna CURDOVA Czech Republic / R�publique tch�que
Mr Francisco ARNAU Spain / Espagne

group of the european people’s party (EPP/CD)
groupe du parti populaire europeen (PPE/DC)
Mr Andrea RIGONI Italy / Italie

european democratic group (EDG)
groupe des democrates europeens (GDE)
Mr David ATKINSON United Kingdom / Royaume Uni

group of the unified european left (UEL)
groupe pour la gauche unitaire europeenne (GUE)
Mr Doros CHRISTODOULIDES Cyprus / Chypre
Mr Jir� MAŠT�LKA Czech Republic / R�publique tch�que

secretariat
Mr Vladimir DRONOV, Head of the interparliamentary co-operation unit
Mr Petr SICH, Secretary to the Bureau of the Assembly
Ms Olga KOSTENKO, Administrator
Mr Angus MACDONALD, Press Officer

Appendix 2
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE OBSERVATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
14 March 2004

PROVISIONAL PROGRAMME

Thursday 11 March 2004

Arrivals

Hotel :

Le Royal Meridien National

15/1 Mokhovaya Stree, Moscow 109009

Tel: +7 095 258 7000 : Fax +7 095 258 7100

Friday 12 March 2004

8.30            Meeting of the Ad hoc Committee

Exchange of views with H.E. Ambassador Hofstee, representing the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers and H.E. Ambassador Richard Wright, Head of the European Commission Office in Moscow, H. E. Ambassador Justin Harman, representing the EU Presidency

10h             Meeting with the Chairman of the Central Election Commission,

Mr. Alexander Veshnyakov

11.15                    Meetings with Mr Zyuganov and other representatives of Communist Party

12.15          Meetings with Mr Oleg Malyshkin, candidate from Russia’s Liberal Democratic Party for Russia’s Presidency

13.15                    Meeting with Mrs Dubejkovskaja, Head of the Headquarter of Mr Sergey Glazyev,    an independent candidate for Russian Presidency

14h             Meeting with Mr Levichev, Head of the Headquarter of Mr Myronov, candidate from Russian Party of Life for Russia’s Presidency

15h             Meeting with Mrs Khakamada, candidate for Russia’s Presidency

16h             Meeting with Mr Kozak, Head of the headquarter of President Vladimir Putin

Saturday 13 March 2004

                  Departure to the regions

9h               Briefing and Deployment with ODIHR

                  Hotel National

12h             Meeting with representatives of the media and the civil society

                  Hotel National

Sunday 14 March 2004

                  Election Observation

Monday 15 March 2004

9h               Exchange of views and assessment of the election

                  Hotel National

14h             Press Conference

Appendix 3
PRESS RELEASE

Russian election generally well administered but lacking elements of a genuine democratic contest

MOSCOW, 15 March, 2004 – The Russian Presidential Election on 14 March was generally well administered and reflected the consistently high public approval rating of the incumbent president but lacked elements of a genuine democratic contest. In addition to a dearth of meaningful debate and genuine pluralism, the election process failed to meet an important commitment concerning treatment by the state-controlled media, in particular television on a non-discriminatory basis. Those are the conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission which deployed 340 observers from 39 countries to monitor the election.

“Though generally well managed, the nature of the election process, in which the incumbent president largely refrained from conventional campaigning, and the absence of rigorous scrutiny by the media, have meant that this election cannot be seen as a fundamental test of the Russian democratic system,” said Julian Peel Yates, Head of the Election Observation Mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

Rudolf Bindig, Head of Delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, said: “Voting proceeded in a calm atmosphere, which is commendable. A cause of concern was the practice of open voting and the lack of reaction to it by election officials. Observers reported that the counting procedures went smoothly in a majority of polling stations observed, but it is worrying that significant problems were reported in one quarter of counts witnessed.”

There were significant efforts made towards encouraging voter turnout and to enfranchising as many people as possible. However, instances of misuse of official positions and even cases of intimidation, were a regrettable aspect to an otherwise commendable effort.

“Candidates were provided with the opportunity to present their messages to voters,” said Ambassador Christian Strohal, Director of the OSCE/ODIHR. “This was however devalued by the state-controlled media displaying clear bias in favour of the incumbent in news presentation and coverage of the campaign, and the failure of the authorities to take adequate remedial action towards this bias. This demonstrates the need to transform state controlled media into independent public media, as ODIHR and the Council of Europe have already recommended on more than one occasion.”

This preliminary statement will be followed by a final report, issued approximately one month after the elections. The OSCE/ODIHR and Council of Europe stand ready to assist the authorities and civil society of the Russian Federation in continuing to improve its electoral process.

Contacts
Urdur Gunnarsdottir, Spokesperson, OSCE/ODIHR, +7 916 800 8324 or +48 603 683 122
Angus Macdonald, Press officer, Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, +33 630 496 820

Appendix 4
14 March Presidential Election Official Results By Region (%)

	Glazev Sergei	Khakamada Irina	Kharitonov Nikolai	Malyshkin Oleg	Mironov Sergei	Putin Vladimir	Against all candidates
Adygei	2.89	1.51	14.06	1.44	0.47	76.42	2.51
Aginskii-Buryatia	2.86	7.21	17.08	1.62	0.77	66.58	2.66
Altai krai	4.09	2.74	18.59	2.93	0.76	67.64	2.23
Altai Republic	3.39	3.51	13.48	1.38	0.73	75.03	1.71
Amur	4.60	3.46	18.74	3.43	0.90	64.87	3.18
Arkhangelsk	3.03	4.20	9.46	1.85	0.77	77.45	2.68
Astrakhan	4.77	3.44	18.28	2.19	0.68	66.08	3.59
Bashkortostan	1.11	1.12	3.96	0.49	0.33	91.78	0.71
Belgorod	4.96	3.18	27.62	2.56	0.83	54.82	4.85
Bryansk	4.07	2.31	23.28	2.00	0.92	63.57	3.00
Buryatia	2.86	7.21	17.08	1.62	0.77	66.58	2.66
Chechnya	0.64	2.67	2.29	0.36	0.36	92.30	0.80
Chelyabinsk	3.42	3.97	14.18	2.47	0.73	70.18	4.10
Chita	3.11	2.57	14.78	2.86	0.93	72.49	2.31
Chukotka	2.25	3.03	3.08	1.39	0.65	87.24	1.69
Chuvashia	2.83	2.52	21.52	1.79	0.62	67.12	2.08
Daghestan	0.24	0.26	3.81	0.16	0.17	94.61	0.44
Evenk	4.56	4.43	4.34	1.39	0.71	81.09	2.89
Ingushetia	0.12	0.10	0.52	0.19	0.73	98.18	0.06
Irkutsk	5.74	5.57	16.76	3.98	1.00	61.96	4.21
Ivanovo	4.34	3.53	16.37	2.95	0.90	67.21	4.07
Jewish Autonomous Oblast	3.25	4.08	15.47	3.32	0.97	67.87	3.95
Kabardino-Balkaria	0.37	0.31	2.22	0.14	0.12	96.49	0.25
Kaliningrad	5.03	4.39	11.79	1.97	1.09	69.86	5.01
Kalmykia	2.27	4.00	11.13	0.96	0.38	79.23	1.17
Kaluga	4.49	3.66	14.73	1.82	0.65	70.16	3.66
Kamchatka	5.58	5.05	9.25	2.59	0.89	71.82	4.30
Karachai-Cherkessia	1.59	1.50	11.48	0.77	0.44	82.28	1.36
Karelia	2.68	5.48	10.13	2.26	1.10	74.14	3.56
Kemerovo	4.14	3.36	11.31	3.44	1.03	71.51	4.02
Khabarovsk	5.74	5.07	13.02	3.34	1.12	64.52	6.23
Khakassia	6.92	4.03	18.36	3.32	1.06	61.41	4.01
Khanty-Mansii	3.51	5.25	7.44	2.94	0.69	74.84	4.65
Kirov	4.59	3.31	19.61	2.63	0.97	65.52	2.74
Komi	3.33	3.67	11.65	2.59	0.84	73.59	3.61
Komi-Permyak	1.58	2.20	10.44	1.82	1.11	80.55	1.23
Koryak	2.37	3.27	4.89	1.66	0.79	84.34	1.24
Kostroma	3.21	2.77	18.54	2.21	1.01	69.22	2.50
Krasnodar	4.14	2.88	19.27	1.87	0.58	67.37	3.09
Krasnoyarsk	17.23	4.03	11.09	2.08	0.65	60.31	3.88
Kurgan	3.47	2.35	19.16	4.00	0.72	66.94	2.67
Kursk	3.81	2.38	21.08	2.37	0.86	65.24	3.23
Leningrad	3.17	3.47	10.17	1.34	1.06	77.10	3.07
Lipetsk	3.89	2.29	21.28	2.66	0.75	63.62	4.56
Magadan	4.42	6.24	10.35	3.06	0.96	70.05	4.34
Marii El	4.11	3.24	18.14	2.40	0.83	67.30	3.10
Mordovia	1.01	0.66	4.53	0.66	0.24	91.35	0.75
Moscow city	6.29	8.20	7.39	1.23	0.62	68.61	6.60
Moscow Oblast	5.82	4.20	10.64	1.57	0.61	71.12	5.13
Murmansk	4.01	5.03	8.14	2.54	0.97	74.04	4.79
Nenets	2.68	3.93	8.43	2.01	1.27	76.90	3.96
Nizhnii Novgorod	3.94	5.10	17.22	2.20	0.78	65.88	4.17
North Ossetia	0.50	0.45	6.27	0.33	0.23	91.25	0.44
Novgorod	3.52	3.55	13.90	2.43	0.84	71.74	3.46
Novosibirsk	4.44	4.35	21.59	1.75	0.61	63.10	3.13
Omsk	3.68	4.04	17.40	3.10	0.74	67.03	3.13
Orel	3.89	2.52	24.03	2.29	0.77	61.66	3.83
Orenburg	4.99	2.66	24.57	3.67	0.73	58.79	3.63
Penza	5.62	2.49	20.16	2.23	0.73	64.56	3.11
Perm	3.75	5.18	10.10	2.64	1.02	72.75	3.77
Primore	5.61	5.63	16.98	4.32	1.00	59.37	6.08
Pskov	3.49	3.13	16.64	1.62	1.18	70.79	2.49
Rostov	3.69	3.01	14.22	2.33	0.61	72.49	3.00
Ryazan	4.31	2.67	13.70	1.68	0.63	73.22	2.72
Sakha	3.35	8.74	11.33	1.57	0.73	69.76	3.58
Sakhalin	4.09	5.01	14.10	2.57	0.71	68.41	4.29
Samara	4.68	4.31	19.12	2.35	0.96	63.28	4.17
Saratov	3.20	2.56	17.03	1.86	0.63	70.79	2.95
Smolensk	3.69	3.02	20.88	2.37	0.78	64.91	3.70
St.Petersburg	4.14	6.74	7.39	0.80	1.46	75.12	3.86
Stavropol	3.78	2.89	21.32	2.47	0.74	64.54	3.54
Sverdlovsk	3.59	5.57	7.78	2.19	0.67	76.34	2.83
Taimyr	4.30	5.58	3.90	2.23	0.84	79.05	3.51
Tambov	3.09	2.10	24.31	1.98	0.59	63.62	3.34
Tatarstan	2.41	3.11	6.59	1.08	1.02	82.58	2.18
Tomsk	3.72	6.60	13.36	2.46	1.11	67.15	4.88
Tula	5.09	3.24	18.46	1.96	0.61	65.50	4.44
Tuva	1.30	1.99	6.02	0.72	0.47	87.53	1.02
Tver	3.98	3.48	15.39	1.89	0.79	70.59	3.42
Tyumen	3.69	3.67	11.22	2.81	0.81	73.59	3.40
Udmurtia	4.00	3.87	9.35	2.60	0.80	75.97	2.33
Ulyanovsk	5.63	2.33	19.26	2.09	0.84	65.91	2.82
Ust-Ordynskii Buryatia	2.13	4.83	14.34	2.25	0.94	72.76	1.25
Vladimir	4.40	2.99	15.45	2.40	0.86	68.83	4.15
Volgograd	4.14	3.68	21.95	2.21	0.74	63.03	3.44
Vologda	3.16	3.25	11.51	1.85	1.05	75.77	2.69
Voronezh	3.37	2.93	21.96	2.21	0.87	65.28	2.67
Yamalo-Nenets	2.38	3.74	3.93	1.47	0.47	84.50	2.86
Yaroslavl	4.88	4.42	12.18	2.18	0.92	70.81	3.55

Appendix 5
Elements for the statement of Mr Rudolf Bindig, head of the delegation of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to observe the 2004 Russian presidential elections

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has been assisting the Russian Federation in building democratic institutions ever since the admission of Russian to the Council of Europe in 1996, in particular in the framework of its monitoring procedure.

Free and fair elections are, of course, the key element of the functioning of democratic institutions. This is why Council of Europe parliamentarians, from seven national parliaments (the Czech Republic, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom) came to observe these elections. On this occasion, we met presidential candidates or their campaign heads, and observed the voting on Sunday in Moscow and in St. Petersburg.

According to the usual practice, we are part of the International Election Observation Mission and, together with my colleagues Mr Peel Yates and Ambassador Strohal, we present our joint observations and conclusions.

Mission observers visited more than 1 500 polling stations throughout the country and made a positive assessment of voting in 95 per cent of polling stations visited. Voting proceeded in a calm atmosphere, which is commendable. A cause for concern was the practice of open voting and the lack of reaction to it by election officials, which I myself observed here in Moscow.

In one third of polling stations there were cases of family and group voting, another infringement of the principle of a secret ballot. Even though it may not have influenced the final result, open voting violates secrecy of the ballot, a fundamental electoral principle.

Observers reported that the counting procedures went smoothly in a majority of polling stations observed, but it is worrying that significant problems were reported in more than a quarter of counts witnessed, where the counting process in polling stations was evaluated as bad or very bad.

Further, there were also isolated cases of other irregularities, including unauthorized persons in some cases controlling polling stations, and certain episodes of obstruction of observers, but which were not characteristic of the overall process.

More concretely, it was reported that in Moscow, Krasnodar and Khabarovsk there were many cases where polling station commissions did not follow sorting and counting adequately, and did not issue copies of results protocols to domestic and international observers when the law requires them to do so. The effect was a certain lack of transparency in these cases.

At one polling station in Moscow ( Tagansky 0123), an incident that  can only be characterized as the manipulation of voter lists leading to ballot box stuffing was directly observed, using absentee voting certificates. In Khabarovsk, one polling station commission produced a fictitious protocol without bothering to actually count votes. In Moscow, at the level of some territorial election commissions, we saw the breach of control safeguards in the automated system for vote tabulation.

The mission is still in the process of gathering data from our observers deployed across the Russian Federation at vote counting and tabulation so cannot yet conclude that these were the only cases.

For the Council of Europe, this election is part of the larger political process going on in Russia. We hope that our observation results will be taken into consideration by the competent Russian authorities and contribute to the strengthening of democratic procedures in Russia. Above all, free media are essential for democracy, not only during elections. I sincerely hope that new legislation to ensure independent public broadcasting will be adopted soon, as promised to us during this visit.

---

[1]Ad hoc Committee to observe the parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation (7 December 2003), Doc. 10032.

[2] Doc.10032.

[3]Joint OSCE/ ODIHR and PACE press release “Russian election generally well administrated but lacking elements of a genuine democratic contest”, Moscow, 15 March, 2004.

[4]Preliminary Report on the monitoring of the Media Coverage of the Presidential Elections in Russia 14 March 2004, implemented by the Russian Union of Journalists, financed by the European Union, SIM Spa. GICO Branch.