|
|
Doc. 8623
24 January 2000
Ad hoc Committee to observe the parliamentary elections in Russia (19 December 1999)
Report
Bureau of the Assembly
Rapporteur: Mr David Atkinson, United Kingdom, European Democratic Group
CONTENTS
A. Introduction 2
B. Election Law 3
C. International Observation 4
D. Electoral Campaign And Media 6
E. Political Context 7
F. Polling Process And Election Results 7
G. Conclusion 8
ANNEXES
A. Press release of the ad hoc committee (20 December 1999) 10
B. Report of the observation team in Moscow 11
C. Report of the observation team in St Petersburg 12
D. Report of the observation team in Kursk 14
E. Report of the observation team in Krasnoļarsk 15
F. Report of the observation team in Rostov 16
G. Report of the observation team in Tcheboksary 17
H. Press release of the International Election Observation Mission 18
I. Press release of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe
delegation (20 December 1999) 20
J. Comparison of 1999, 1995 and 1993 election results 21
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Parliamentary elections to the Russian State Duma were held on 19 December 1999. Following the invitation from the Speaker of the State Duma, Mr Seleznev, the Bureau of the Assembly established, on the basis of proposals from political groups, an ad hoc committee to observe these elections. Its membership and observation venues were as follows:
Chairman: Mr Ernst MUEHLEMANN (Switzerland), LDR (Moscow and Dzerjinsky)
Vice-Chairperson: Ms Elena POPTODOROVA (Bulgaria), SOC (Moscow and Dzerjinsky)
Rapporteur: Mr David ATKINSON (United Kingdom), EDG (St Petersburg)
Mr Olav AKSELSEN (Norway), SOC (Tcheboksary)
Ms Josette DURRIEU (France), SOC (Tcheboksary)
Ms Jelena HOFFMANN (Germany), SOC (Moscow)
Lord PONSONBY (United Kingdom), SOC (Kursk)
Mr Ladislav SKOPAL (Czech Republic), SOC (St Petersburg)
Mr Ivar TALLO (Estonia), SOC (Krasnoļarsk)
Mr Björn von der ESCH (Sweden), EPP/CD (Krasnoļarsk)
Mr Dumeni COLUMBERG (Switzerland), EPP/CD (Tcheboksary)
Mr Zarko DOMLJAN (Croatia), EPP/CD (Moscow)
Ms Edeltraud GATTERER (Austria), EPP/CD (St Petersburg)
Mr José HERRERA ANTONAYA (Spain), EPP/CD (Tcheboksary)
Mr Youliy PAVLOV (Bulgaria), EPP/CD (Kursk)
Mr Benno ZIERER (Germany), EPP/CD (Krasnoļarsk)
Mr Georges CLERFAYT (Belgium), LDR (Kursk)
Mr Michael HANCOCK (United Kingdom), LDR (Moscow)
Ms Hanne SEVERINSEN (Denmark), LDR (Moscow)
Mr Cevdet AKĒALI (Turkey), EDG (St Petersburg)
Mr Doros CHRISTODOULIDES (Cyprus), UEL (Moscow)
Mr Mats EINARSSON (Sweden), UEL (Krasnoļarsk)
Mr Jaakko LAAKSO (Finland), UEL (St Petersburg)
Mr Leonid STRIZHKO (Ukraine), UEL (Rostov)
Secretariat: Egbert AUSEMS, Guy DUFOUR, Agnčs NOLLINGER, Aiste RAMANAUSKAITE, Farida JAMAL, Jean-Pierre GUGLIELMI and Zara KARAPETYAN.
2. The ad hoc committee met in Strasbourg on 3 November 1999. It agreed on provisional observation venues outside Moscow and on the teams to go there. On 20 December 1999, the ad hoc committee adopted a press release which is given in Annex A. Reports of the teams which observed in Moscow, St. Petersburg , Kursk, Krasnoļarsk, Rostov and Tcheboksary are in Annexes B, C, D, E, F and G. At the same time, a delegation of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe observed local elections in Vladivostok (see Annex I). Despite efforts to the last minute it was not possible for security reasons to observe the election process in North Ossetia or Ingushetia.
3. Developments have not caused us to change our conclusion as summarised in the press release which we issued on 20 December 1999:
“The Russians have been given the political freedom to elect their representatives and they have shown their determination to use it. This shows that Russia maintains its democratic course”.
4. Annex H presents the 20 December joint press release of the International Election Observation Mission (Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, European Parliament, ODIHR and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly). Annex J presents the election results as compared to 1993 and 1995.
5. It should be noted that the appraisals in the Annexes are concordant – albeit qualified in different ways and insisted on as provisional. Following are some comments on the election law, the international observation exercise, the media, the political context, the polling process and election results.
B. THE ELECTION LAW
6. The electoral law was designed to provide for renewal of the 450-seat State Duma, the “lower chamber” of Russia’s Federal Assembly.
7. The electoral law provides for a mixed proportional/majoritarian system. Half of the members are elected from 225 single-member constituencies on the basis of “first-past-the-post”. The other 225 are elected from nation-wide party lists, with a threshold of 5% of the votes to limit the number of parties.
8. In March and June 1999, amendments were approved to the two laws governing the parliamentary elections: the Federal Law on the basic guarantees of electoral rights of the citizens of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law on elections of deputies of the State Duma. The amendments seem to respond to a certain degree to the recommendations of our report on the 1995 parliamentary elections (doc. 7430, Addendum V). Thus, instead of the requested signatures, candidates in single mandate districts as well as political parties and associations now had the option to pay an electoral deposit.
9. Another development has to be welcomed: only 26 electoral associations or blocs took part in the 1999 elections, as compared to 43 in 1995.
10. Candidates and electoral associations and blocs are entitled to free broadcasting on State TV and radio channels as well as to free printing space in State periodicals, on equal grounds. Public media are to reserve air time for election campaigning, whilst private media may provide such time for payment.
11. Regarding the financing of the campaign, the law provides that expenditures for State Duma elections are borne by federal budget funds. Election funds are to be set up by candidates and electoral associations and blocs, with a limited amount and guarantees for transparency. Should a candidate, electoral association or bloc use other monetary resources than those transferred to the election funds, the election commission concerned may request the court to cancel the registration.
12. Voters, who are not present in their electoral precinct on voting day, can obtain an absentee certificate, which enables them to be included on the voter list of any other electoral precinct within the electoral district where the voter is eligible to vote.
13. While recognising that the electoral legislation has improved since 1995, the ad hoc committee nevertheless feels that further steps should be taken for future elections, in particular as regards:
- the precinct election commissions: they are still often appointed by dominant local firms or institutions. This is a traditional practice in Russia which will undoubtedly have to be improved in order to guarantee the commissions’ impartiality ;
- proportionality of sanctions: for violation of election finance provisions, the law provides only for the refusal or annulment of registration, or removal of the mandate, regardless of the gravity of the violation. Furthermore, if one of the three top candidates of an electoral association or bloc is withdrawn, the registration of the whole list of candidates becomes invalid. Such provisions, even though designed to exclude potential candidates with links to criminal activities, have clearly to be reformed for future elections ;
- immunities: it is wrong for people to seek election for the privilege of immunity from criminal investigation and conviction. Immunity for MPs should be brought to an end and Article 98 of the Constitution amended accordingly.
14. In spite of these concerns, the ad hoc committee wishes to commend the work done by the Central election commission which handled the elections in a most efficient manner, in spite of the country’s size and its 107,000,000 electors and 93,000 polling stations, including 110 with a brand-new electronic polling system.
C. INTERNATIONAL OBSERVATION
15. Apart from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the OSCE/ODIHR had been invited to observe the elections, as well as the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament.
16. The OSCE Chairman-in-Office had appointed as his Special representative for the State Duma election and Head of the OSCE Election Observation Mission Mrs Helle Degn, President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and also member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
17. The OSCE/ODIHR long-term Election Observation Mission was directed by Ambassador Edouard Brunner.
18. The European Parliament ad hoc delegation for observation of the State Duma elections consisted of some 15 members and was headed by Mrs Constanze Krehl. They arrived in Moscow on 18 December, after the close of the ongoing plenary session in Strasbourg.
19. The heads of these missions and leaders of the delegations met on 16 December in Moscow and agreed to co-operate in the observation of the elections in the framework of an international election observation mission. They accepted to invite their members to respect strictly their mandate, which was to observe and assess the elections, and not to publicise their conclusions before a joint press conference to be held on 21 December. They also created a drafting group, composed of one representative of each delegation and mission, which would elaborate drafts of a joint press release and preliminary statement.
20. Members of all delegations present attended a joint parliamentary briefing organised by OSCE/ODIHR on 17 December, where they exchanged views with OSCE/ODIHR officials, the President of the Central election commission and leaders of the main Russian political parties.
21. OSCE/ODIHR provided the parliamentary observers with useful documentation, such as a guide for the election of deputies to the State Duma and the ODIHR Election Observation Handbook. The teams who would observe in Moscow received a map and a list of polling stations. All parliamentary observers were provided with a number of forms to report on their observations.
22. After polling day, there was no common debriefing of the parliamentary observers; each delegation arranged its own debriefing and returned the completed observation forms to the OSCE/ODIHR.
23. The Heads of Delegation and Mission met on 19 and 20 December to exchange information on the observations made by their respective delegations and missions and to agree on a joint press release and a provisional statement.
24. On Monday 20 December at 2 pm, a common press conference was held by the Heads of Mission and Delegation: Mrs Helle Degn, Head of the OSCE Election Observation Mission, Mr Ernst Muehlemann, Head of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Delegation, Mrs Constanze Krehl, Head of the European Parliament ad hoc Delegation, and Ambassador Edouard Brunner, Head of the OSCE/ODIHR long-term Election Observation Mission.
25. The press conference was attended by approximately 20 TV reporters, some 30 radio reporters and an important number of representatives of the written press.
26. The conference was opened by Mrs Degn who presented in a 5-minute statement the joint press release and preliminary statement. Mr Muehlemann, Mrs Krehl and Ambassador Brunner spoke each for about the same time. A number of questions were raised, including some questions to the Council of Europe representative.
27. After the press conference, Mr Muehlemann gave a number of interviews, and again in the morning of 21 December.
28. In conclusion, the co-operation between the OSCE/ODIHR and the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the European Union has proved to be beneficial. It enabled these institutions to agree on a common position in respect of the democratic value of the elections and to speak with one voice – which undoubtedly added to the authority of the assessment. It also presented a number of advantages in that it allowed to avoid overlap of observation activities, repetition of exchange of views with Russian politicians and officials and differences in information provided to the respective parliamentary groups.
29. On the other hand, some disadvantages need to be considered as well. Although the co-operation within the framework of the international observation mission was based on the complete independence of each Mission and Delegation, the various meetings, briefings and press conference were invariably chaired by the President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, in her capacity as Special Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-office. This placed an extremely heavy burden on Mrs Degn, who must be commended for her performance, but who had also to lead the largest parliamentary observer delegation. Moreover, it prevented the other delegations from getting full credit for their involvement and their investments in the observation of the elections.
30. Mrs Degn’s proposal to institutionalise this system of joint observation was therefore rightly not discussed by the Heads of Mission and Delegation. Indeed, the ad hoc Committee is of the opinion that in future election observations the possibilities of co-operation between the observing delegations and missions must each time be examined and assessed in the light of the prevailing circumstances.
D. THE ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN AND THE MEDIA
31. In spite of the war going on in Chechnya, the Chechen problem was not a major issue in the electoral campaign, since most prominent candidates and electoral associations/blocs were in favour of the military intervention.
32. With the exception of the Communist party and Yabloko, political parties and electoral blocs competing in the elections were formed around prominent individuals rather than specific political programmes. This particularly applies to the Unity movement, which was set up just a few weeks before the elections.
33. Many observers confirmed interference by executive authorities in the election process, in order to harm opposition parties and candidates: refusal to arrange public meetings, extraordinary tax inspections, dismissal from employment, administrative fines, groundless criminal investigations, etc.
34. In St Petersburg for instance, it was clear that governor Yakovlev1 used his office to influence the election result in totally unacceptable ways, such as control of the city’s TV channel and using the city administration in favour of Fatherland – All Russia.
35. Notwithstanding preventive provisions in the improved Election Law and the continuous efforts of the Central election commission, the electoral campaign in the Russian media appeared to have been utterly unfair.
36. On the one hand, certain media, both public and private, were clearly influenced by major stockholders, certain political circles or the administration to provide partial and incorrect information on certain political parties, blocs or candidates. On the other hand, in many media, candidates were attacked personally in a way that the OSCE has qualified as often crossing the line to slander and libel.
37. In some regions, local media were forced by the regional authorities on which they depended for subsidies and support to refrain from criticism of local authorities.
38. The media coverage of the legislative elections was monitored by the European Institute for the Media (EIM), an independent, non-profit research institution, commissioned by the European Commission. The conclusion of its monitoring is as follows:
“Although in production terms professional standards were high and the allocation of free time was observed fairly, in many ways the character of this election campaign in the media was considerably worse than the previous parliamentary elections in 1995”.
39. Your rapporteur subscribes to this assessment; in his view, the elections were free, but the campaign in the media was not fair, not clean and not honest, even if this may have been counterproductive.
E. POLITICAL CONTEXT
40. The elections on 19 December 1999 were the third parliamentary elections held in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite speculations that they might be delayed, they were held in the delays provided for by the Constitution, and this has to be welcomed.
41. Voters were called upon to constitute a new State Duma by expressing their will to support or reject the policy implemented by the newly appointed Prime minister, V. Putin, in particular the war in Chechnya, which on polling day was still raging.
42. It has to be noted that all major candidates and electoral associations and blocs as well as the outgoing State Duma officially supported the government’s policy in Chechnya. These parliamentary elections were also seen as a run-up to the forthcoming presidential elections which, due to President Yeltsin’s resignation on 31 December 1999, are now scheduled for 26 March 2000.
43. The electors’ main choice centered around the following political options:
- extreme left: Communist party (G. Zyuganov)
- centre left: Yabloko (G. Yavlinsky)
- centre: Fatherland – All Russia (Y. Luzhkov and Y. Primakov)
- centre right: Union of Just Forces (S. Kirienko)
- extreme right: Zhirinovsky Bloc
- interregional movement: Unity (S. Shoigu), which was created in October 1999 with the support of Prime minister Putin.
F. POLLING PROCESS AND ELECTION RESULTS
44. On the whole, polling on 19 December 1999 was conducted in a satisfactory manner and tribute should be paid to the electoral commissions active throughout the country. The high voter turnout (62%) in this election indicates confidence in the democratic process.
45. However, in the 100-odd polling stations which the members of the ad hoc committee visited on election day, they noted a number of irregularities which deserve due consideration by the authorities concerned:
- equipment of polling stations: many of them were too small and the number of booths was often insufficient, which entailed lack of privacy for voters in marking their ballot papers ;
- family voting ;
- party and candidate badges: they continue to be allowed to be displayed by observers within the polling stations ;
- posters containing declared information on the assets, property and income of candidates are displayed in polling stations ; this information should be private but the subject of declaration and registration in the event of election ;
- mobile boxes: some of them were seen unsealed, in particular in Rostov ; furthermore the polling process with mobile boxes is far too long, due in particular to the complexity of ballot papers and the number of elections taking place at the same time (4 different elections in Moscow for instance).
46. On 29 December 1999, the Central election commission announced the final results of the State Duma elections:
Votes (federal lists) Seats (including
single-mandate districts)2
- Communist Party 24,29 % 113
- Unity 23,32 % 72
- Fatherland – All Russia 13,33 % 66
- Union of Just Forces 8,52 % 29
- Zhirinovsky Bloc 5,98 % 17
- Yabloko 5,93 % 21
- Independent and others 122
G. CONCLUSION
47. The Council of Europe delegation, composed of 25 Parliamentary Assembly members belonging to five different political groups, and three members of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, visited polling stations in Moscow, St Petersburg, Kursk, Krasnoyarsk, Tcheboksary, Rostov and Vladivostok. The delegation, the largest ever to observe elections in Russia, participated in an international observation exercise together with OSCE/ODIHR, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament.
48. First of all, the ad hoc committee on observation of Russian parliamentary elections (19 December 1999) welcomes the fact that these elections were held within the time-limit provided for by the Constitution and commends the Central election commission for the work done in order to administer the polling in this immense country.
49. The Russians have been given the political freedom to elect their representatives and they have shown their determination to use it. This shows that Russia maintains its democratic course. These elections have also demonstrated that pluralism is now accepted in a country that for many years was ruled by a single party, even if the fight between the 26 political parties in this election was harsh. On the whole, this fight has been free but not fair, given that commercial groupings and political circles have used their influence on certain media to mislead the voters. These allegations must be examined by the appropriate institutions and, where necessary, measures must be taken to prevent such abuses in the future – in particular during the forthcoming Presidential election.
50. It must be clear that, as was the case in the previous campaign, in this campaign the media continued to be exploited by those in power and by their owners, in such a blatant way that the campaign cannot be described as fair, clean or honest. On polling day, however, the delegation found that the organisation of the elections has progressed and commended the Central election commission on its determination to implement the amended Electoral Law.
51. However, a number of steps have to be taken for forthcoming elections, in particular in the following areas:
- interference by executive authorities in the election process ;
- membership of precinct election commissions ;
- immunity of MPs ;
- equipment of polling stations ;
- family voting ;
- party and candidate badges ;
- posters on private information on candidates ;
- mobile boxes ;
- complexity of ballot papers ;
- more effective control of campaign expenditure.
52. Whilst the Chechnya conflict was not the principal issue in the electoral campaign, public support for the military action saved the government from criticism on other domestic issues in the electoral debate.
53. The delegation expresses the hope that the new State Duma will contribute to political stability in Russia, in co-operation with the government and the President ; that it will work towards the honouring of Russia’s obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe, and that it will strive to solve the Chechnya conflict with political instruments rather than military means, in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights.
54. Thus we conclude that the election on polling day was free, but that the campaign was not fair, clean nor honest.
Annex A
Annex B
Report of the observation team in Moscow and surroundings
Led by Mr Domljan, four teams were deployed in and around Moscow:
§ Mr Domljan and Mrs Hoffmann (North Moscow) ;
§ Mr Christodoulides and Mrs Severinsen (East Moscow) ;
§ Mr Hancock (South Moscow) ;
§ Mr Muehlemann and Mrs Poptodorova (Moscow Centre and Dzerzhinsky).
In addition, members of the secretariat observed the elections in two polling stations.
The general impression of the observers was that compared to the 1995 elections there was progress; no serious irregularities and no pressure were reported whilst the atmosphere in the polling stations was pleasant.
The presence in nearly all stations of many local observers prevented large scale fraud and manipulation of ballot papers.
Certain aspects of the election procedure might, however, be improved:
- In general, voters should be better prepared for the complicated rules to be respected ;
- Members of the polling station electoral commissions should be elected and not be appointed by private enterprises ;
- Holders of an “absentee certificate” should not be prevented from voting ;
- Electoral propaganda, including badges, should not be allowed inside polling stations.
The general conclusion was that in and around Moscow polling on 19 December 1999 was free and fair.
Annex C
Report of the observation team in St. Petersburg
The St. Petersburg team consisting of Mr J. Laakso (UEL, Finland) – Group leader, Mr D. Atkinson (EDG, United Kingdom) – Rapporteur, Mr C. Akcali (EDG, Turkey), Mrs E. Gatterer (EPP/CD, Austria), Mr L. Skopal (SOC, Czech Republic), and assisted by Ms A. Ramanauskaite, arrived in St. Petersburg on Saturday, 18 December 1999. It largely appreciated the help of the IPA CIS (Interparliamentary Assembly of the Commonwealth of the Independent States) in preparing this visit.
Upon its arrival, the delegation met with the representatives of the St. Petersburg Municipal Electoral Commission (MEC), Yabloko movement and the Secretary General of the Council of the IPA CIS. On the following day it also met with the representatives of the Fatherland All-Russia (OVR) block and the ‘Unity’ (‘Edinstvo’, also known as ‘Medved’ or ‘Bear’) movement.
Mr Garusov, Chairman of the St. Petersburg MEC, told the delegation that, in accordance with the Supreme Court decision, the Central Electoral Commission had on 16 December cancelled the gubernatorial elections in St. Petersburg scheduled for 19 December thus overturning the attempts by the current city’s governor to advance these elections to coincide with the elections to the Duma. This had significantly increased the workload of the Municipal Electoral Commission and caused some technical complications on the eve of polling. We consider that Governor Yakovlev was irresponsible in seeking to bring forward his own re-election campaign to this polling day.
Mr Garusov also underscored the importance of several recent improvements in the electoral law concerning the rights of the preventively detained; the use of the parties’ funds; the obligation for individual candidates to submit income declarations; and the power granted to local electoral commissions to control electoral funds by the means of three random check-ups at different stages of electoral campaign and after the poll.
St. Petersburg’s 3.7 million voters were to elect eight deputies out of 98 candidates from single mandate districts. The candidates’ list included a number of prominent personalities, such us former Prime Minister S. Stepashin, former Labour Minister O. Dmitrieva, St. Peterburg ex-mayor A. Sobchak, Mr A. Nevzorov, a controversial journalist and media advisor to the city’s governor, etc.
The most recurrent observation made by the representatives of various parties / electoral blocs met concerned the run-up to the poll that was depicted as a biased and aggressive one filled with abuses in the media. A Fatherland All-Russia representative, for instance, strongly condemned the practice of spreading misleading information (rumours) or even counterfeit newspapers just before the closure of election campaign when those under attack had no longer time to respond to allegations. Several such cases have been reported in St. Petersburg and are subject to official investigation. It appears that any independent journalistic enquiry into suspicious nature of certain such “scoops” is also limited by some provisions in the electoral law that treat any information on any candidate or party before the elections as propaganda which has to be paid for by a candidate or party concerned.
The ‘Unity’ in its turn blamed the local authorities’ attempts to hamper the organisation of a major manifestation of party supporters towards the end of election campaign. It accused the city’s governor of using time on television - allocated to him to exercise his gubernatorial duties - for campaigning in favour of Fatherland All-Russia.
Although it is difficult for us being short-term observers to give an accurate estimate of the extent to which the alleged abuses in the media had been a decisive factor weighing on the voters’ choices in the elections, these nonetheless represent a serious concern as to the degree of independence of the local media. But it is clear that in this campaign as in the last one the media continues to be exploited by those in power and by their owners, in such blatant ways that the campaign cannot be described as fair, clean or honest.
While none of the parties expected any significant form of voter intimidation during the poll itself, they affirmed in unison that the specificity of St. Petersburg electorate might cause the election results in this constituency differ from those in the rest of the country.
On the day of elections, the team visited 9 polling stations in the city centre and the northern suburbs. It returned to one of these stations to observe the vote counting at the end of the poll. In all stations visited we noted a high level of organisation and high turnout of voters throughout the day. However, the lack of polling booths and discipline on the part of voters had altogether to certain extent undermined the secrecy of voting.
Two to seven domestic observers were present in each polling station we visited. We noted that some of these observers wore visibly badges with party symbols (what was also the case in previous elections) – something that is not acceptable in many western European countries but not illegal in Russia.
We observed with concern the unnecessary exposure of the private assets, property and income of individual candidates in the polling stations – the act on a brink of a breach to one’s right to privacy. This type of data should be considered as private and therefore confidential until the moment of election.
In conclusion, the St. Petersburg team was able to confirm that the elections there were free but hardly fair and honest because of a ‘polluted’ run-up to the poll.
Annex D
Report on the observations in and around Kursk
The Group consisted of Mr Clerfayt (Leader), Mrs Kautto, Mr Pavlov and Lord Ponsonby. The Group is indebted to the Kursk authorities for their readiness and assistance during the observation visit.
In the Kursk region about 1 million voters were called to vote in 1210 polling stations for two candidates in a proportional vote and 23 candidates in a majority vote.
On 18 December, the Group met the Chairperson of the Regional Election Commission, Mrs Elena Yarovaļa, Governor Routskoļ, Vice-Governor Popov, the mayor of Kursk and other local authorities. A meeting with the candidates had also been organised but only the candidates of Unity and some independent candidates participated. The candidates of the Communist Party attended a session of the Tribunal which was called to rule on a complaint by the Zhirinovski Bloc on the authenticity of signatures collected by Mr Ivanov (Communist Party). Mr Ivanov's candidature was declared valid on the eve of polling day at 7 pm.
The Group noted that the dominant position of the Governor's Administration carried the risk of intimidation of the members of the electoral commission, the leaders of which are appointed by the Governor. The same applies to equality of the electoral campaign because it is obvious that requests by Governor Administrations for access to the media can be hardly refused.
With the local OSCE Long Term Observer, Mr Harry Atkinson, the Group agreed on the deployment of its observation teams and was informed that hitherto the organisation of the elections had been normal and that no major incidents had occurred in the election campaign. The Chechnya conflict had not been an issue in that campaign.
On 19 December, the Group visited 28 polling stations in Kursk and surroundings. Apart from rather frequent family voting and voting outside polling booths, the observers have not noticed any significant irregularity. The domestic observers from political parties shared this conclusion. Soldiers, who voted in the civilian polling stations instead of their barracks, admitted that they had not only been instructed how to vote, but also been "advised" for whom to vote. Some observers of the Group have followed a mobile polling box and concluded that the procedure was in accordance with the rules.
Counting of the votes was done in a regular way, in good order and in the presence of observers from political parties.
In conclusion, the Group considers that the elections in Kursk were free. The group noted also that people employed in the polling stations were conscientious and devoted. The Group considers that the administrative authorities in the regions would be better balanced during the elections if the composition of the election commissions would depend less on the choice of the local authorities. Such provision would reduce considerably the reminders of the one-party state, particularly in the countryside.
Annex E
Report of the observation teams in and around Krasnoiarsk
Two teams observed the elections in Krasnoiarsk, with Mr Zierer as Group leader:
§ Mr Zierer and Mr Tallo
§ Mr von der Esch and Mr Einarsson
These teams visited 29 polling stations. The first stations were visited at 8 am; the last ones (N° 1848 and 1849) were observed from 8pm - 9 pm.
In 90% of these stations no serious shortcomings were observed, although the following remarks can be made:
- voting took also place outside the polling booths;
- 3 polling booths are not sufficient for 3000 voters;
- in many polling stations space was lacking;
- one polling station commission was chaired by an army official in uniform;
- in polling station N° 767 a member of the "Klukin party" showed "particular activity";
- in Yemelanowo (35 km west of Krasnoiarsk), polling stations N° 1977 and 1979 were organised in an exemplary way;
- the organisation in polling stations N° 1874 and 1881 (Divnogorsk) was also exemplary.
General observations
- a one minute item on our observation activity was broadcast on TV;
- notwithstanding our efforts, we have not met any observer groups from the OSCE or the European Parliament;
- no propaganda was made in the immediate surroundings of polling stations;
- in urban areas few young people were seen voting;
- on 18 December, we exchanged views with the Chairman of the District Electoral Commission, Mr Kostriki, and with the local leader of Fatherland Party, Mr Novikov;
- notwithstanding clear support from DEC Chairman Kostriki we had no access to polling station N° 26 in Knas. A visit in Zelesnogorsk was refused by the Head of the security service of the chemical plant ;
- unfortunately, neither Mr Lebed nor Mr Kacherov have tried to contact our Group.
Annex F
Report on the election observation in Rostov Na Donu
The elections in Rostov na Donu were observed by Mr Strizhko, who formed a team with an OSCE observer, Mr Scott Lang (USA).
The team observed the preparations and the opening of polling station N°1861 and subsequently visited 12 polling stations, including a prison. Counting of the ballot papers and establishment of the election protocol was observed in polling station N° 1836.
Mr Strizhko was informed by Mr Bulgakov (Tagaurog, Rostov region) and Mr Droban (Moscow) about violations of the Election Law prior to polling day.
On polling day, the team did not observe any serious irregularities.
Some remarks on the voting procedures:
- the presence of more than one person in a polling booth (1811, 1787, 1863);
- in one ballot box, a suspect black object was dropped which caused some disturbance and which led the polling station election commission to no longer use that box (1836);
- in polling station 1807, a member of the militia reported over the telephone on voting activities;
- some mobile ballot boxes were not sealed (1787).
Annex G
Report on the observations in and around Tcheboksary (Chuvashi Republic)
The observation visit of the Group, which was headed by Mrs Durrieu, was well organised by the Private Office of the President of the Chuvashi Republic and the assistance of the authorities was appreciated. The OSCE had not deployed any international observers in the Republic.
On 18 December, the Group exchanged views with the Head of the Private Office of the President of the Republic, Mr Pyotr Krasnov, the President of the Central Election Commission, Mrs Lyudmila Linik and representatives of the political parties. On 19 December, the Group met the President of the Republic, Mr Fyodorov. It also visited the headquarters of some political parties.
In general, complaints of these interlocutors concerned essentially the role of the media and the inequality in the existing system which allows parties and candidates who can afford it, to dispose of more broadcasting time and more coverage in the newspapers. Moreover, the Group was informed that particularly at federal level, public channels favoured a certain party and slandered the others.
The Chuvashi Republic was entitled to two seats in the Duma.
On polling day, the Group split into two teams:
Mrs Durrieu and Mr Columberg
Mr Akselsen and Mr Herrera
and visited 16 polling stations in the capital and its surroundings.
The Group has observed that in general the material organisation was correct, with several isolated polling booths. Ballot papers were drafted in the two official languages of the Republic, Russian and Chuvashi; elderly people, however, admitted that they had difficulties in completing them.
Whilst in general polling was observed by observers from political parties, the Group noted also the presence in most polling stations of the militia.
In the light of its observations, the Group concluded that in the Chuvashi Republic the elections were free and fair.
Annex H
Annex I
Annex J
1 In this connection, the observers in St Petersburg consider that the governor was irresponsible in seeking to bring forward his own re-election campaign to this polling day, which the Supreme Court found illegal and disallowed within days of the election. This undoubtedly imposed considerable extra work for the Election commission on the eve of polling.
2 A second round of voting is to be held in March 2000 in single-mandate districts where the elections were invalidated or the majority of the electorate voted against all of the candidates; elections were not held in Chechnya.