Parliamentary Assembly
Assembl�e parlementaire

Ad hoc Committee to observe the parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation (7 December 2003)

Doc. 10032
22 January 2004

Report
Bureau
Rapporteur: Mr David Atkinson, United Kingdom, European Democratic Group

I.          Introduction

1.                  At its meeting on 8 September 2003, the Bureau of the Assembly decided to set up an ad hoc committee, composed of 30 members according to the d’Hondt system, to observe the parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation on 7 December 2003.  On 25 November 2003, the Bureau appointed me as Chairman and rapporteur of this ad hoc committee.

2.                  The Bureau also decided that a pre-electoral mission, composed of one representative from each political group, which were at the same time members of the ad hoc committee, should take place no later than one month before the elections. Accordingly, a delegation composed of Lord Russell-Johnston (UK, LDR), Spoke-person of the delegation,  Doros Christodoulides (Cyprus, UEL), Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC), Andr� Kvakkestad, (Norway, EDG) and Peter Letzgus (Germany, EPP/CD) visited Moscow on 29-31 October 2003. At the end of the visit, the delegation issued a press statement and Lord Russell-Johnston prepared a memorandum for the Bureau of the Assembly on the results of this visit, which is reproduced in Appendix 1.

3.         The ad hoc committee carried out its observation mission in the Russian Federation from 4 to 8 December 2003. The list of members of the ad hoc committee and the  programme of the observation mission are reproduced in Appendices 2 and 3. On election day, observation teams were deployed in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Krasnodar, Kazan and Ufa (Bashkortostan).

4.         According to the established practice, the Assembly delegation was part of the “International Election Observation Mission” (IEOM) together with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE/ODIHR. The IEOM prepared a Joint Press Statement, which was presented by the Heads of the three delegations at a joint press conference held on 8 December 2003 at 2 pm (Appendix 4).

II.         Election campaign

5.         The revised Electoral Code has brought improvements in comparison with the last parliamentary elections in 1999 in line with the recommendations made by the Assembly, in particular, as regards registration of candidates, reform of campaign expenditure, transparency of the voting process and the rights of domestic observers. The result is a comprehensive legal framework, which provides the potential for a democratic election process.

6.         However, a number of problems appeared during the election campaign, which was highlighted by the pre-electoral mission. Among them, in particular:

a.         Media coverage

7.         The pre-electoral mission considered that although newspapers seemed to provide a wide choice of opinion, the three TV stations with nation-wide coverage were all government-owned and failed to demonstrate impartiality in political reporting. It concluded that unless there was a major change in the balance of coverage, the election couldn’t be fair. In the longer perspective, it considered that this kind of problems could only be solved through putting in place an independent system of “public service broadcasting” in the state-owned or state-controlled channels.

8.         These findings were largely confirmed by the observer delegation. The OSCE/ODIHR carried out a monitoring of the media coverage in the run up to the elections and came to the conclusion that “most media monitored by the IEOM did not provide impartial and fair coverage of the campaign” (tables on the monitoring of the media coverage, prepared by OSCE/ODIHR, are contained in Appendices 5, 6 and 7). This was also reported to the delegation during meetings with representatives of different political parties, which complained about the bias in favour of the “United Russia”. The Communist Party, in particular, complained strongly about being singled out for a very negative coverage on the state TV channels, which was also confirmed by the above-mentioned ODIHR monitoring.

9.         Therefore, despite the fact that each registered party or bloc received during the official election campaign period three hours of free air time on state TV channels and that each party, bloc or candidate could buy additional “air-time” at market rate, the clear bias shown by State owned or controlled TV over the entire period of the campaign and before cannot be ignored and remained a major failing of the system.

10.       During the campaign, TV debates took place with the participation of different political parties and blocs, but the United Russia did not accept to take part in them, showing, in my opinion, a certain disregard for voters.

b.         ban on “campaigning” in the media

11.       The pre-electoral mission concluded that the provisions of the electoral legislation concerning the coverage of the elections and the vague distinction made between "informing", which was allowed and "campaigning" which was prohibited, had an enormous potential for abuse. The media law was subject to amendment by the Constitutional Court during the visit of the pre-electoral mission and the change made was clearly beneficial.

12.       However, the legislation still forbids that a legal entity, i.e.  newspapers, takes position in favour of one or another candidate and forbids also calls on voters to vote for a given candidate. Newspapers can only provide “objective” information about candidates. They can publish positions and appeals coming from external sources (other candidates, for example), but should abstain from articulating their own stand.

13.       There were only very few cases where this legislation had been evoked. However, it very likely had a negative impact on the media coverage of the campaign, since many journalists simply refrained from covering it.

14.       Therefore, I fully share the conclusion of the pre-election mission that it was highly unsatisfactory to have a legislation, which was still capable of interpretation in ways which would limit press freedom in a draconian way and strongly urge the new Duma to hold an early hearing into the working of this legislation.

c.         Possibilities for some candidates to abuse administrative resources of the state for the purposes of their own electoral campaign.

15.       An important number of governors and some federal ministers were included on party lists. Most of them were on the list of the “United Russia” – 29 heads of the subjects of the Federation and 4 federal ministers. According to the law, government officials were required to suspend the exercise of their functions during the election campaign. However, it was found that this requirement was not respected in all cases. Furthermore, candidates who were government officials benefited in a number of cases from the support of the administration, for example as regards office space and spaces for meetings and rallies, as well as posting their campaign materials in prime locations.

16.       This extensive abuse of administrative resources – that is taxpayers’ money – by national and regional government on behalf of particular parties and candidates is unacceptable.

17.       Moreover, the inclusion of many holders of high office on party lists, who had no intention of taking up their seats as parliamentary deputies, was misleading and deceitful and I urge the CEC to review this practice to ensure that it is not repeated for the next Duma elections.

III.        Polling day

18.       The polling was generally well organised and free. It took place in a calm and orderly manner and the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) as well as electoral officials at lower levels deserve credit for their high level of professionalism.

19.       The delegation welcomed the improvements made in the organisation of the polling, which the Parliamentary Assembly recommended four years ago, including clearer ballot papers and observation of mobile voting. 

20.       On the other hand, imbalances in the composition of some electoral commissions were reported, despite the fact that each party represented in the out-going Duma had the right to be represented in the subject of the Federation and territorial commissions. These imbalances were reported to benefit the “United Russia” party.

21.       Our observers also reported cases of family voting and open voting, which resulted in the lack of secrecy in balloting. In some cases, polling stations were difficult to find due to unclear sign posting. Information concerning their location was clearly inadequate.

22.       More severe irregularities were reported from some regions far away from Moscow. A blatant fraud apparently happened in Bashkortostan, where some voters seemed to be voting under pressure. It was considered, however, that these cases should not be considered typical of the country as a whole.

IV.        Results of the elections

23.       Under Russia’s electoral system, half of the 450 seats in the State Duma are distributed to candidates on lists presented by parties or electoral blocs. The remaining half is contested in individual constituencies.  Parties failing to achieve a five percent barrier do not qualify to enter parliament on the basis of party lists.

24.       According to the results provided by the CEC, the United Russia obtained 37,57%, the Communist Party 12,61%, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) 11,45%, the bloc “Rodina” 9,02%, Yabloko 4,3%, the Union of Right Forces (SPS) 3,97% and Agrarian Party 3,64%. 

V.         Conclusion

25.       The IEOM concluded in its joint press statement that the elections were well organised, but failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments, calling into question Russia’s willingness to move towards European standards for democratic elections.

26.       In this press statement, I declared that we welcomed improvements in the conduct of these elections in line with our recommendations fours years ago, but we were concerned at the unfair practices, which benefited one party. I underlined that real political competition and choice for voters were indispensable elements in a true democratic election process.

27.       When Russia joined the Council of Europe in 1996, it was well short of our standards of democracy and human rights and it has been the subject of the monitoring process ever since. The conduct of these elections will contribute to the Council of Europe’s assessment of the progress Russia is making towards democracy.

28.       In this connection, the 2003 Duma elections indicate that Russia’s progress towards democracy has slowed down. Multiparty democracy exists in Russia and the elections can be considered as free, but certainly not fair. This situation was reflected in voters’ disillusionment, in particular among young voters.

29.       It is, therefore, highly important to intensify the co-operation between Russia and the Council of Europe concentrating on the problems noted in this report. Our main task should be giving full support to further reform for the independence of the media in Russia following the experience of these elections, 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.

30.       Our experience in working with the OSCE/ODIHR as part of the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) was satisfactory, as was the joint press conference held on 8 December 2003.  However, there clearly remains room for improvement in our joint co-operation which would certainly be assisted by staying in the same hotel.

APPENDIX 1

AS/Bur/AHRU (2003) 1

17 November 2003

BUREAU OF THE ASSEMBLY

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (7 DECEMBER 2003)

Memorandum on the pre-electoral mission to Moscow on 29-31 October 2003 presented by Lord Russell-Johnston, spokesperson of the delegation

1.         Introduction

1.                  At its meeting on 8 September 2003, the Bureau of the Assembly decided to set up an ad hoc Committee, composed of 30 members according to d’Hondt system, to observe the parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation, which will take place on 7 December 2003.

2.                  The Bureau also agreed that a pre-electoral mission, composed of one representative for each political group, which are at the same time members of the ad hoc Committee, should take place no later than one month before the elections.

3.                  Accordingly, a delegation composed of Lord Russell-Johnston (UK, LDR), Doris Christodoulides (Cyprus, UEL), Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC), Andr� Kvakkestad, (Norway, EDG) and Peter Letzgus (Germany, EPP-CD) visited Moscow on 29-31 October 2003.  The delegation elected Lord Russell-Johnston as its spoke-person.

4.                  From the Secretariat, Mr Vladimir Dronov, Head of the Inteparliamentary Co-operation Unit, Mr Petr Sich, Executive Assistant to the Secretary General of the Assembly and Secretary to the Assembly’s Bureau and Mrs Farida Jamal, Assistant, accompanied the delegation.

5.                  During the visit, the delegation met with leaders of political fractions in the State Duma, the Chairman of the Central Election Commission, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, First Deputy Minister of Press, representatives of the media and civil society, Ambassadors of the European Union Troika and Moldova (representing the Chair-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe).

6.                  At the end of the visit, the delegation issued a press statement, which is reproduced in appendix.

2.         Main comments by the delegation on the election process

7.                  The Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) informed the delegation that, following the recommendations made after the 1999 parliamentary elections, in particular by the Parliamentary Assembly and OSCE/ODIHR, the election legislation has been amended. The main amendments aimed at reinforcing transparency of the financing of political parties, avoiding some “scandalous” situations, which tarnished the last elections and guaranteeing better public control over the voting process, including the counting of votes. 

8.                  The CEC Chairman underlined, in particular:

a.         as regards the registration of candidates: if incorrect data are discovered in the candidates’ registration forms, it does not lead to the automatic non-registration, as it was the case during the last elections, but to the compulsory publication of these irregularities in the mass media. There were only a very few complaints regarding the registration of candidates, which were solved according to the law.

b.         as regards public control over the voting process: political parties and NGOs can send observers to all polling stations to monitor the whole voting process. They will be able to eyewitness the counting and will receive certified photocopies of the protocols. Information regarding results from different polling stations and electoral commissions will be available on the CEC internet site so that observers could proceed to a “parallel” counting. Observers can also videotape the proceedings in voting stations. The CEC published a booklet to inform observers about their rights.

9.                  The delegation recognised that the revised Electoral Code has brought improvements in comparison with the last parliamentary elections in 1999, in particular, as regards the registration of candidates, transparency of the voting process and the rights of domestic observers.

10.              However, the delegation expressed a number of concerns, in particular as regards :

a.         Media coverage

11.              Newspapers seem to provide a wide choice of opinion. However, the three TV stations with nation-wide coverage are all government-owned and, up to this time, failed to demonstrate impartiality in political reporting. It was alleged to the delegation that in the period running up to the official opening of the campaign on 7 November, 90% of the coverage had been pro-governmental.

12.              According to the CEC Chairman, each registered party will receive during the official election campaign period three hours of free “air time” on state TV channels. Moreover, each party or candidate can buy additional “air-time” at market price. TV debates of candidates should take place.

13.              Despite these measures, the delegation considered that, unless there was a major change in the balance of coverage, the election couldn’t be fair. In the longer perspective, the delegation considered that this kind of problems could only be solved through putting in place an independent system of “public service broadcasting” in the state or state-controlled channels. In this respect, the delegation was informed that a new draft law on media was currently being discussed.

b.         ban on “campaigning” in the media

14.              The delegation considered that the provisions of the electoral legislation concerning the coverage of the elections and the vague distinction made between "informing", which is allowed and "campaigning" which it prohibited, had an enormous potential for abuse.

15.              According to the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, the law forbids that a legal entity, i.e.  newspapers, takes position in favour of one or another candidate and forbids also calls on voters to vote for a given candidate. Newspapers can only provide “objective” information about candidates. However, they can publish positions and appeals coming from external sources (other candidates, for example).

16.              At the time of the visit, only one case was reported to the delegation where a newspaper had been fined on the basis of these provisions (in Kaliningrad).

17.              The media law was subject to amendment by the Constitutional Court during the visit of the delegation and the change made was clearly beneficial. Nevertheless, even if it was unlikely that the law would be invoked, it was, in the delegation’s view, highly unsatisfactory to have a legislation, which was still capable of interpretation in ways, which would limit press freedom in a draconian way.

c.         Excessive control of governors and regional authorities during the election period, including the risk of fraud during the counting process

18.              During the delegation’s visit, some people claimed that even though the election process would probably be quite free and fair in the main cities, the biggest potential for fraud was in far-away regions, where the control and power of local and regional authorities was very important.

d.         Possibilities for some candidates to use administrative resources of the state for the purposes of their own electoral campaign.

19.              An important number of governors and some ministers have been included on party lists. It was said to the delegation that most of them were on the list of the “Edinstvo” party, which is considered as pro-President. According to this information, more than twenty governors and 4 federal ministers were on the “Edinstvo” party list.

20.              It was generally recognised that the majority of these candidates, if elected, would not take up their seats in the Duma, which would go to an alternate.

21.              According to the law, government officials are required to suspend the exercise of their functions during the election campaign. However, it was alleged to the delegation that this requirement was not respected in all cases.

3.         Case of Mr Khodorkovski

22.              Throughout the visit, the arrest of Mr Khodorkovski on tax evasion charges was the main political issue raised during discussions. Some people alleged during the visit that this case was an example of the selective application of justice and a link was made between the arrest and Mr Khodorkovski’s political ambitions. It was generally recognised that Mr Khodorkovski financed some opposition parties.

23.              Even though this matter was not directly linked to the forthcoming elections, the delegation invited the authorities to ensure the full respect of the rule of law.

4.         Conclusions

24.              The delegation called upon the authorities concerned, and, in particular, the Central Election Commission, to take immediate measures to remedy the concerns voiced. It expressed the hope that the authorities would respond to the comments and that the parliamentary elections of 7 December 2003 would be a further step towards the reinforcement of democratic institutions in the Russian Federation. Aware that there have been calls to abstain, the delegation called upon the electorate to reject them, and exercise its civic duty and vote.

Appendix

DECLARATION (Moscow, 31 October 2003)

In preparation for the observation of the Parliamentary elections to be held in the Russian Federation on 7 December 2003, a delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, headed by Lord Russell-Johnston, visited Moscow on 29-31 October 2003.

The delegation met with leaders of political fractions in the State Duma, the Chairman of the Central Election Commission, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, First Deputy Minister of Press, representatives of the media and civil society, Ambassadors of the European Union Troika and Moldova (representing the Chair-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe).

The revised Electoral Code has brought improvements in comparison with the last parliamentary elections in 1999, in particular, as regards the registration of candidates, transparency of the voting process and the rights of domestic observers.

However, the delegation has expressed a number of concerns, in particular as regards :

The delegation called upon the authorities concerned, and, in particular, the Central Election Commission, to take immediate measures to remedy the concerns voiced.

The media law was subject to amendment by the Constitutional Court during our visit and the change made was clearly beneficial. Nevertheless, even if it is unlikely that the law will be invoked it is, in our view, highly unsatisfactory to have a law which is still capable of interpretation in ways which would limit press freedom in a draconian way.

Throughtout the visit, the arrest of Mr Khodorkovski was the main political issue raised during discussion. Even though this matter is not directly linked to the forthcoming elections,

the delegation invited the authorities to ensure the full respect of the rule of law.

In conclusion, the delegation expressed the hope that the authorities would respond to the comments and that the parliamentary elections of 7 December 2003 would be a further step towards the reinforcement of democratic institutions in the Russian Federation. Aware that there have been calls to abstain, It asks the electorate to reject them, and exercise its civic duty and vote.

The full observation mission of 30 Assembly members will be deployed from 4 to 8 December 2003 in Moscow and several regions of the Russian Federation.

Pre-election Delegation :

Lord Russell-Johnston , (UK, LDR)\
Doros Christodoulides (Cyprus, UEL)
Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC)
Andr� Kvakkestad, (Norway, EDG)
Peter Letzgus (Germany, EPP-CD)

Contact : Vladimir Dronov,
Head of Interparliamentary Cooperation,
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe : '
Tel : +33 689 99 50 49 (mobile)

APPENDIX 2

AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE OBSERVATION OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
(7 December 2003)

COMMISSION AD HOC SUR L’OBSERVATION DES ELECTIONS LEGISLATIVES EN FEDERATION DE RUSSIE
(7 d�cembre 2003)

Socialist group (SOC)
Groupe socialiste (SOC)
Mr Bakhtiyar ALIYEV, Azerbaijan / Azerbaidjan
Mr Rudolf BINDIG, Germany / Allemagne
Mr Tom COX, United Kingdom / Royaume Uni
Mr Michael HAGBERG, Sweden / Su�de
Mr Andreas GROSS, Switzerland / Suisse 
Mr Aleksander MALACHOWSKI, Poland / Pologne

Group of the European people's party (EPP/CD)
Groupe du parti populaire europeen (PPE/DC)
Mr Bogdan KLICH, Poland / Pologne
Mr Marko MIHKELSON, Estonia / Estonie
M. Pasquale NESSA, Italy / Italie
Mr Andrea RIGONI, Italie / Italie
M. Fran�ois ROCHEBLOINE, France

Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ group (LDR) /
Groupe liberal, democrate et reformateur (LDR)
Lord Russell-Johnston, United Kingdom / Royaume Uni
Mme Lisbeth FEHR, Switzerland / Suisse
Mr Mike HANCOCK, United Kingdom / Royaume Uni

European Democratic group (EDG)
Groupe des democrates europeens (GDE)
Mr David ATKINSON, United Kingdom / Royaume Uni
Mr Mykhailo HLADIY, Ukraine
Mr Andr� KVAKKESTAD, Norway / Norv�ge

Group of the Unified European Left (EUL)
Groupe pour la gauche unitaire europeenne (GUE)
Mr Doros CHRISTODOULIDES, Cyprus / Chypre
Mr Jiri 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
Ms Ivi-Triin ODRATS, Administrator
Ms Farida JAMAL, Co-ordinator
Mr Francesc FERRER, Press Officer
Ms Anita DYSERINCK, Assistant

APPENDIX 3

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE OBSERVATION OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
4 – 8 December 2003

DRAFT PROGRAMME

Thursday 4 December 2003

Arrivals

20h            Meeting of the Ad hoc Committee

Hotel National

Friday 5 December 2003

9h – 18h    Joint Briefing (PACE and OSCE PA)                                             (see Programme)

                  State Duma

Saturday 6 December 2003

-          Departures to the regions

10h            Informal meeting with Long-Term Observers for Moscow region

                  Hotel Savoy

12h            Meeting with journalists

                  Hotel National

Sunday 7 December 2003

6h              Departure for Moscow regions

7h              Departure for Moscow city

Monday 8 December 2003

9h        Exchange of views and assessment of the election

            Hotel National

14h      Press Conference

            Hotel Ukraine

_________________________________

Hotel :

Le Royal Maridien National

15/1 Mokhovaya Stree, Moscow 109009

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

Programme  of meetings on 5 December 2003

Joint Briefing: PACE/OSCE PA/Nordic Council at the State Duma

Members are requested to bring their CEC accreditation badges and passports.

*All meetings on 5 December will take place at the RussianState Duma (Okhotny Ryad, 1)

*Simultaneous interpretation will be provided between Russian, English and French

08:30                           Meet in the lobby of the Nation Hotel; walk to the State Duma

09.00 – 09:10              Introduction to the work of the ODIHR Election Observation Mission,

Ms. Rita Sussmuth, Head of the ODIHR EOM

09:10 – 09:30              Political parties, blocs and candidates contesting the elections

Mr. Ian Gorvin, ODIHR EOM Political Analyst

09:30 – 10.00              Overview of the campaign period and EOM observations (followed by questions)

Amb. Robert Barry, Deputy Head of the ODIHR EOM

10.00 – 11.00              Meeting with the Speaker of the RussianState Duma,

Mr. Gennady Seleznev

11.00 – 12.00              Meeting with the Chairman of the Central Election Commission,

Mr. Alexander Veshnyakov

12.00 – 13.00              Meeting with the Head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Mr. Gennady Zuganov

13.00 – 14.00              Meeting with Mr. Valery Bogomolov, Secretary of the General Council of the “United Russia” Party; Mr. Konstantin Kosachev, First Deputy Head of the “Fatherland – All Russia” Faction; Mr. Mikhail Bugera, Deputy Head of  the “Regions of Russia” Faction.

14.00 – 15.00              Lunch in the State Duma

15.00 – 16.00              Meeting with the Head of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia,

Mr. Vladimir Zhirinovsky

16.00 – 17.00              Meeting with Mr. Alexander Barannikov, Deputy Head of the "Union of Right Forces" Faction

17:00 – 17:15              Legal Framework and election administration,

Mr. Joseph Middleton, ODIHR EOM Legal Analyst

17:15 – 17:30              Preliminary results of EOM media monitoring,

Mr. Rastislav Kuzel, ODIHR EOM Media Analyst

17:30 – 18:00             Questions and comments

APPENDIX 4

PRESS RELEASE

State Duma elections well organized but failed to meet many international standards 

MOSCOW, 8 December 2003 –  The State Duma elections on 7 December failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments, calling into question Russia’s willingness to move towards European standards for democratic elections, concludes the International Election Observation Mission  (IEOM) in a statement, issued today. Over 500 international observers from 42 countries monitored the voting and counting from Vladivostok to St. Petersburg.

The Central Election Commission deserves credit for its professional organization of these elections. However, the pre-election process was characterized by extensive use of the state apparatus and media favouritism to benefit the largest pro-presidential party,  reflected in voter apathy.

“Given that procedures on election day were conducted in a technically correct way, it is even more regrettable that the main impression of the overall electoral process is of regression in the democratization process in Russia,” said Bruce George MP, President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, appointed by the OSCE Chairman in office as the Special Co-ordinator for the Short-term observers. “We hope that improvements will be made within the next few months to ensure that the upcoming presidential elections will come closer to meeting international standards.”

“The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly delegation welcomes improvements in the conduct of these elections in line with our recommendations four years ago. However, we are very concerned at the unfair practices, which have benefited one party. Real political competition and choice for the voters are indispensable elements in a true democratic election process,” added David Atkinson MP, Head of the Parliamentary Delegation of the Council of Europe.

Professor Rita S�ssmuth, Head of the Long-term Observation Mission, deployed by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, said: “We have serious concerns regarding the lack of media independence. State media failed to provide balanced coverage of the campaign and considerable pressure was exerted on journalists, which restricted information available to voters to make an informed choice. Steps should be taken to develop the state broadcasters into a truly independent public service.”

Despite the shortcomings in the election process, the IEOM recognized the improvement of a comprehensive legal framework which provides the potential for a democratic election process, as well as the fact that the Central Election Commission functioned in an efficient and open manner. In a positive step, there was a decision by the constitutional court lifting the most restrictive and controversial provisions on campaign media. Televised debates encouraged an exchange of views, although their value to the electorate was lessened by the non-participation of United Russia.

Election day proceeded in a generally calm and orderly manner. International observers assessed the conduct of voting as positive in an overwhelming majority of polling stations. However, irregularities were noted in regard to the protection of the secrecy of the vote, while other problems were noted during the counting process. The OSCE and the Council of Europe will continue to follow the process closely and stand ready to assist the authorities and civil society of the Russian Federation in continuing to improve its democratic process.

For further information, please contact:

see APPENDIX 5

see APPENDIX 6

see APPENDIX 7