2012 Georgia Election Report

ELECTION OBSERVATION Georgia — Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 FINAL REPORT Tbilisi, 5 October 2012 – This Final Report and Statement of Conclusions is the result of an endeavor Caspian Strategy Institute. Mr. Efgan Niftiyev, Director of Academics and Research, and Mr. Elchin Musayev, Election Expert of Caspian Strategy Institute were appointed as Election Observers by the Caspian Strategy Institute. The assessment was made to determine whether the elections complied with the international commitments for democratic elections, as well as with the legislation of Georgia. This final report and conclusions is delivered after the completion of the election process and includes the count, the tabulation and the handling of possible post-election day complaints or appeals. __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ FINAL CONCLUSIONS The 1 October parliamentary elections marked an important step in consolidating the conduct of democratic elections in line with international commitments, although certain key issues remain to be addressed. The elections were competitive with active citizen participation throughout the campaign, including in peaceful mass rallies. The environment, however, was polarized and tense, characterized by the use of harsh rhetoric and some instances of violence. The campaign often centered on the advantages of incumbency, on the one hand, and private financial assets, on the other, rather than on concrete political platforms and programs. Freedoms of association, assembly and expression were respected overall, although instances of harassment and intimidation of party activists and supporters marred the campaign environment and often ended with detentions or fines of mostly opposition-affiliated campaigners, contributing to an atmosphere of distrust among contestants. The distinction between state activities and the campaign of the ruling party was at times blurred, at odds with paragraph 5.4 of the OSCE 1990 Copenhagen Document. Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :2 Overall, election day was calm and peaceful throughout the country. Caspian Strategy Institute observers assessed all stages of the election day process generally positively with adherence to procedures, although counting received a less positive assessment. The CEC began releasing preliminary results and posting results protocols in the early morning hours on the day after the elections, contributing to transparency. Preliminary voter turnout was reported at 60.8 per cent. Fourteen parties, two electoral blocs, and four independent candidates were registered in an inclusive and transparent process, providing voters with a wide choice. The positive voluntary quota promoting a more balanced gender representation was not met by the majority of contestants, including the United National Movement (UNM) and the opposition coalition ‘Georgian Dream’ (GD), limiting its effect. The election administration enjoyed a high level of confidence and managed the preparations for the elections in a professional manner. The Central Election Commission (CEC) operated efficiently and transparently, holding frequent meetings that were open to observers, party representatives and media. In addition, it promoted several welcome initiatives upholding participation of national minorities in the elections. Verification efforts by the Commission for Ensuring the Accuracy of the Voter Lists (CEAVL) as well as political parties and civil society enhanced public trust in the quality of voter lists. Voter registration procedures for citizens abroad were not communicated to potential voters in a clear and timely manner, revealing insufficient regulation and co-ordination among the institutions involved. The Inter-Agency Commission (IAC), mandated to consider complaints or allegations of campaign violations, proved a useful forum for the review of concerns raised by stakeholders. The IAC’s nonbinding recommendations were implemented in a timely manner by the relevant authorities. The Election Code is generally conducive for democratic elections, but room for improvements remains. Important previous recommendations by the international organizations and the Venice Commission were addressed, including granting the right for prisoners to vote, permitting independent candidacy, and reducing residency requirements. Other key recommendations have yet to be addressed. One notable shortcoming is the disparity of the population size among single mandate constituencies, which undermines the equality of the vote required by paragraph 7.3 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. In addition, the potential for post-election disqualification of contestants provided for in a number of articles in the law is contrary to paragraph 7.9 of the OSCE 1990 Copenhagen Document.1 The Law on Political Unions of Citizens (Law on Political Unions) that regulates party and campaign finance was drafted in an effort to create a comprehensive regulatory framework. However, the law contains serious lacunae, ambiguities and disproportional sanctions negatively affecting its implementation. Both the Election Code and the Law on Political Unions underwent substantial amendments less than a year before the elections, which some interlocutors criticized as lacking impartiality. The new regulatory body, the State Audit Office (SAO), enjoyed wide discretionary powers, but overall failed to apply the legal provisions in a transparent, independent, impartial and consistent manner targeting mainly the opposition. In this regard, questions were raised that challenged due process and the independence of the judiciary. 1 Paragraph 7.9 of the OSCE 1990 Copenhagen Document requires that participating States “ensure that candidates who obtain the necessary number of votes required by law are duly installed in office and are permitted to remain in office until their term in office expires (…)” Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :3 The media environment was diverse, yet some private television (TV) channels had limited coverage within the country thus preventing full access to the wide variety of information available to citizens. The Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB) provided politically balanced news coverage of the campaign. No other TV channels provided balanced news coverage, contrary to their legal obligations. In a positive development, the ‘Must Carry, Must Offer’ provisions, applicable only during the pre- election campaign, enabled opposition-leaning TV channels to increase their audience through access to cable networks. In addition, numerous talk shows and debates provided candidates with real opportunities to present their views. The active involvement of a large number of domestic observer organizations and civil society throughout the entire electoral process enhanced its overall transparency. Authorities were open to their participation and were receptive to initiatives put forward by them. FINAL FINDINGS Background On 1 August, President Mikheil Saakashvili called parliamentary elections for 1 October 2012, in line with constitutional requirements. The new parliament will have considerably increased authority. Constitutional amendments introduced in 2010 reduced the powers of the president in favor of the prime minister and the government. The constitutional amendments will enter into force after the next presidential election, anticipated in 2013. In the outgoing parliament, the governing majority of the United National Movement (UNM) held 119 of the 150 mandates. The United Opposition held 17 mandates, the Christian-Democratic Movement (CDM) and the Labor Party (LP) - 6 mandates each, and the Republican Party (RP) - 2 mandates. Two majoritarian members of parliament from RP relinquished their mandates, which were filled by the CDM and the National Democratic Party following the 2008 by-elections. The Electoral System and Legal Framework The 150-member parliament is elected for a four-year term under a mixed system. Political parties and coalitions competed for 77 seats in a proportional contest with closed lists in a single nationwide constituency, and for 73 seats in single-mandate constituencies. Allocation of seats in the proportional race is granted to parties and blocs that surpass a five per cent threshold of the valid votes. In majoritarian contests, a candidate must obtain at least 30 per cent of the valid votes to be elected. Otherwise, a run-off takes place between the two candidates with the most votes in the first round. The key electoral legislation includes the Constitution, the Election Code, the Organic Law on Political Unions of Citizens (Law on Political Unions), the Law on the State Audit Office, the Criminal Code, and regulations of the election administration. Both the electoral system and the legal framework underwent significant amendments less than a year before the elections, which is contrary to international good practice, and which some interlocutors criticized as lacking impartiality.2 2 The Constitution, Law on Political Unions, Election Code, Law on State Audit Office and Criminal Code were adopted and/or amended in December 2011, in May and/or June 2012. See European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters (CDL-AD (2002) 23 rev), p. 26. Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :4 New provisions also reduced residency and support signature requirements to stand, introduced a voluntary gender quota for candidate lists, and placed some restrictions on the use of administrative resources. In addition, provisions remain that allow political public officials to combine campaign activities with the conduct of their official duties; and permit the use of some administrative resources for campaign purposes, in particular state-funded buildings, provided that equal access is given to all election subjects. In practice, such equality may be undermined as political parties in government have easier access. Electoral subjects risk post-election disqualification for some campaign violations related to vote buying, campaign finance and abuse of administrative resources, as well as the failure to pass a drug test after an election, but prior to being installed in office. The age requirement for candidates was reduced from 25 to 21 years and tailor-made provisions were introduced to allow the leader of the ‘Georgian Dream’ (GD), Mr. Bidzina Ivanishvili, to vote and stand as a candidate after he lost his Georgian citizenship. In addition, the new Election Code provides a possibility for political parties or blocs that clear the threshold for seat allocation, but get less than six seats (the number necessary to form a parliamentary fraction) to receive additional seats to enable its establishment. This may result in a deduction of mandates from other, winning electoral subjects.3 Election Administration The elections were administered by a three-tiered election administration comprised of the Central Election Commission (CEC), 73 District Election Commissions (DECs), and 3,648 Precinct Election Commissions (PECs). In addition, 71 special polling stations were established in military units, hospitals, detention centers and prisons; 45 polling stations at consular offices abroad; and 2 polling stations for Georgian military personnel serving in Afghanistan.4 Election commissions at all levels have 13 members each, 7 of whom are nominated by the political parties that qualify for state funding. Five CEC members are appointed by parliament, with additional procedures to select the chairperson. For DECs and PECs, the remaining six members, in addition to the political party nominations, are appointed by higher-level election commissions. The six appointed members, together with the UNM representative, were able to exercise control over the decision-making and held a de facto majority on election commissions at all levels. Only one woman served on the CEC. At the DEC level, while women represented 44 per cent of the permanent membership, in 73 DECs, they only held 15 chair positions and 47 secretary posts. The competencies of the CEC narrowed under the new Election Code, with other institutions having assumed responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of voter lists, and for media and campaign finance monitoring. This allowed the CEC to focus exclusively on the core task of election administration, which it performed in a competent and professional manner. The CEC operated efficiently and transparently, holding frequent meetings that were open to observers, party representatives and media, and promptly uploaded all decisions to its website. Discussions leading to CEC decisions were often vigorous and argumentative, reflecting the overall polarized political environment. At times, requests by commission members nominated by opposition parties to place issues on the agenda were deferred indefinitely.5 3 4 5 Article 50.2 on the Constitution and Article 125.7-6 of the Election Code. No polling stations were formed in the Russian Federation due to the absence of diplomatic relations. The GD representative on the CEC requested that deadlines for filing election day complaints be put on the agenda, CEC meeting, 14 September; the Conservative Party member of the CEC requested that the eligibility of military personnel to vote in majoritarian elections be put on the agenda, CEC meeting, 18 September. Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :5 The election administration enjoyed a high level of confidence and managed the preparations for the elections in a professional and timely manner. Prior to election day, turnover among PEC members was not uncommon. In many cases, PEC members nominated by political parties were not informed that their names were being put forward or resigned due to liability concerns associated with their responsibility. The CEC conducted voter information campaigns on various aspects of the election process. All DEC and PEC members received comprehensive training provided by the CEC Training Centre. Some controversy arose over the 27 special polling stations set up to facilitate voting of security forces in their barracks.6 According to the Election Code, military personnel are entitled to both a proportional and majoritarian ballot at their place of service, irrespective of their civilian place of registration.7 The GD filed 17 complaints with the respective DECs, alleging that these polling stations were set up to distort the majoritarian vote in favor of the UNM in regions with small voter populations, such as Mestia. All of the GD complaints were reviewed and dismissed. The IAC subsequently recommended that conscripts enlisted after 1 July vote at regular polling stations.8 Voter Registration Under the new Election Code, the Commission for Ensuring the Accuracy of the Voter Lists (CEAVL) is responsible for verifying and compiling voter lists. CEAVL is chaired by a member of the opposition New Rights Party. In June and July, CEAVL conducted a door-to-door verification of voter data. Beginning on 28 August, preliminary voter lists were posted for public scrutiny in all polling stations. On 29 September, CEC announced that final voter lists included 3,613,851 registered voters. Overall, the activities of CEAVL and other voter list verification efforts undertaken by political parties and civil society enhanced public trust in the quality voter lists. Few complaints were filed concerning the voter lists. However, some persisting problems affected their accuracy. The civil registry from which voter lists are drawn still lacks a comprehensive and uniform address system and updated information on address or civil status changes. Citizens abroad were entitled to register to vote at polling stations established in consular offices regardless of whether they were included in the consular registry or not. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), the Civil Registry Department and the CEC did not efficiently co-ordinate efforts and did not provide potential voters with timely and accurate information about applicable procedures and required documents for registering to vote abroad.9 Following criticism from citizens’ organizations abroad and opposition parties, the CEC extended the initial deadline for voter registration abroad by three days and established five additional polling stations abroad.10 6 7 8 9 10 This included some 29,661 military and Ministry of Interior troops. Special polling stations were set up where 50 or more military voters were on the special voter list. If less than 50, they voted by mobile ballot box from a designated regular polling station. All special polling stations were assigned to regular polling stations for the counting and tabulation of votes IAC recommendation of 21 September. The MFA communicated rules for obtaining consular registration at their embassies, rather than information on how to register to vote. Only on 10 September when the CEC extended the registration deadline did the MFA ask their embassies to put information about how to register to vote on their websites. An application form for consular registration was available, but not a form for registration to vote abroad. Some 786 voters registered during the extension period, compared to 1,409 voters in the preceding 10 days. Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :6 Registration of Parties and Candidates The registration of 2,742 candidates, including 2,313 candidates from party lists on the proportional ballot and 429 on majoritarian ballots, provided voters with a wide range of choice. In total, 14 political parties and 2 electoral blocs comprising 8 parties, as well as 4 independent majoritarian candidates contested these elections. The registration process was transparent and inclusive.11 There were 729 and 59 female candidates in the proportional and majoritarian contests, respectively, accounting for 28.74 per cent of candidates in these elections. Only 6 of the 16 electoral subjects met the voluntary quota, which entitles parties to a 10 per cent higher state subsidy, by including 2 members of the under represented gender in each 10 positions on their lists.12 At various stages of the election reform process since 2008, parliament, political parties, and civil society organizations engaged in dialogue and negotiations that led to a number of amendments to election legislation. These addressed some of the concerns raised by the international community and domestic observers. They included:  a shift in the division of party-list and majoritarian seats decided through the mixed voting system (to 77 and 73, respectively, from a previous even split of 75-75);  some improved definitions regarding the use of administrative resources in the campaign;  stricter regulations on political party financing;  financial incentives for parties placing women on their candidate lists;  provisions to facilitate participation of minority populations;  removal of a blanket ban on prisoner voting;  allowance for individuals to run as independent candidates; Earlier in the campaign, an issue arose concerning the assignment of the list number to the GD coalition. The GD had initially assumed that it would be able to retain the number used by one of its constituent parties from the 2008 elections, based on its interpretation of the law. The CEC assigned the GD a different one. Although this assignment rendered a significant amount of GD campaign material printed with the previous number unusable, the CEC decision was in line with the Election Code and its approach in similar cases in 2004 and 2008. The GD did not file a complaint against the decision of the CEC. Campaign Environment The campaign was competitive with active citizen participation, including in peaceful mass rallies. The campaign environment, however, the vilification of political adversaries and vitriolic rhetoric became commonplace; and hate speech against religious and ethnic minorities can still be found in Georgian campaign rhetoric. At the same time, there were incidents of threats, intimidation of party activists and voters, with some isolated clashes. Vote buying by the two main electoral competitors was frequently the subject of complaints and was a major concern raised to the observers of Caspian Strategy Institute The campaign often centered on the advantages of incumbency, on the one hand, and private financial assets, on the other, rather than on concrete political platforms and programs. Freedoms of association, assembly and expression were respected overall, although some incidents marred the campaign, especially as election day approached. 11 12 The few complaints on candidate registration were mostly related to residency requirements, signature requirements, and registering the name of a political party. Neither UNM nor GD met this voluntary quota. On the proportional ballot GD fielded 33 women of 200 candidates and UNM fielded 17 of 155. Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :7 Campaign Finance Campaign finance regulations were drafted in an effort to create a comprehensive regulatory framework. However, some provisions remain ambiguous and inconsistent. The Law on Political Unions and the Election Code regulate public and private funding of political parties and of the campaign, ceilings on campaign expenditure, reporting and disclosure requirements, providing sanctions for violations. The Financial Monitoring Service for Political Finances of the State Audit Office (SAO) is mandated to exercise oversight in this field. By law, the SAO is independent, but the perception of its independence and impartiality was undermined by the political affiliations of its management.13 Media The media environment was diverse, yet some private television (TV) channels had limited coverage within the country thus preventing full access to the variety of information to citizens. While GBP and the two private channels, Rustavi 2 and Imedi, are the only TV stations with nationwide coverage, the two latter media are widely perceived as supportive of the government. The coverage of the three opposition-leaning private channels, Maestro, Kavkasia and recently re-established TV 9, was mostly limited to Tbilisi and satellite networks. In July, the broadcast content provider Global Contact Consulting Ltd and TV Maestro made attempts to increase the penetration of satellite networks by distributing receivers. However, both companies had their satellite dishes and TV equipment seized by a court order “on the grounds that they were intended for (…) vote buying”.14 As a result, the distribution of some 128,000 satellite dishes and 68,000 satellite receivers were stopped. The so-called “must carry” provision gave more Georgians access to a plurality of information sources, particularly access to pro-opposition media perspectives for a significant number of households outside major cities. The Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC), the regulatory body for the broadcast media, was mandated to oversee the implementation of media-related provisions of the Election Code, which included monitoring for balanced coverage in news and current affairs programs. The GNCC indicated a lack of balanced coverage in most media outlets monitored by them. This is not in line with the Law on Broadcasting, which calls for non-discriminatory and pluralistic coverage of all relevant views in news programs.15 However, the GNCC did not take any action due to the lack of sanctioning power in this respect. By law, such violations should be resolved by self-regulatory bodies within the respective media outlets. A complaint by a media NGO over bias of six TV stations was dismissed by their respective self-regulatory bodies, which deemed the NGO ‘not a concerned party’, as its rights were not directly violated. Apart from these challenges, no other complaints were filed against the media. It is a concern that decisions on media complaints related to impartiality of campaign coverage cannot be appealed, including to the courts. The current SAO Director was until 23 July 2012 member of parliament for UNM. Both the former Director and Deputy-Director stepped down in order to run in the elections as candidates for UNM. 14 See court decisions of 21 and 25 June (Global Ltd), court decision of 14 June and administrative protocols of 11 and 15 July (Maestro Ltd.). 15 See Article 54 of the Law on Broadcasting. In addition, the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters calls for “thorough and balanced coverage of campaign activities of qualified election subjects”. 13 Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :8 Participation of National Minorities National minorities enjoy full political rights under the Constitution, and according to the 2002 census make up 16.2 per cent of the population. The most significant minority groups are Azerbaijanis (6.5 per cent) and Armenians (5.7 per cent). Several parties and blocs included members of national minorities in their lists and as majoritarian candidates, nominating them in districts where minorities form substantial parts of the population. In Akhalkalaki, five majoritarian candidates, including from the UNM and the GD, were ethnic Armenians; with another four ethnic Armenian candidates in Ninotsminda. In Marneuli, six majoritarian candidates were ethnic Azerbaijani. The CEC translated voter lists, ballot papers and protocols and conducted trainings in minority languages, in line with international standards.43 The CEC also operated a tri-lingual hotline and regularly aired voter information in Armenian, Azerbaijani and Russian. These welcomed initiatives were developed jointly with civil society groups representing national minorities. Complaints and Appeals The new Election Code established a fast track for dispute resolution and review of appeals against election commissions’ decisions. It clarified deadlines and gave an additional day for filing complaints at PEC level. The CEC standardized the form for the submission of complaints, which simplified the process, and provided trainings and a manual on the dispute resolution process to party lawyers and civil society. PEC and DEC members were also trained on polling day complaint process. Domestic and International Observers The CEC registered 50 domestic and 61 international organizations to observe these elections. Overall, the CEC accredited approximately 20,000 domestic and 2,000 international observers. The active participation of such large numbers of domestic observers served to enhance the transparency of the process. Civil society and domestic observer organizations undertook a number of activities to support the electoral process and monitor the elections. ELECTION DAY Overall, election day was calm and peaceful throughout the country. Caspian Strategy Institute observers assessed all stages of the election day process generally positively with adherence to procedures, although counting received a less positive assessment. The CEC began releasing preliminary results and posting results protocols in the early morning hours on the day after the elections, contributing to the overall transparency. Preliminary voter turnout was reported at 60.8 per cent. Opening procedures were generally followed and international observers assessed the process positively in 140 polling stations out of 158 observed, however, small delays in the opening of polls occurred. Voting was generally well organized and polling officials administered the vote in a competent and professional manner. International observers evaluated the process positively in 93.5 per cent of polling stations observed. The process was assessed more negatively in rural areas. Domestic observers and party representatives were present in nearly all polling stations (95 and 99 per cent respectively). However, this combined with high voter turnout contributed to overcrowding in 11.5 per cent of polling stations observed and led to some tension both inside and outside of polling stations. International observers reported restrictions in their work in 5 per cent of polling stations observed. In a few instances, party representatives were observed interfering in the work of PECs. Women represented 52 per cent of PEC chairpersons in the polling stations observed. Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :9 1. OPENING In general terms, the opening process was described as being well-organized, efficient, accurate, mostly transparent, calm, smooth, but in contrast by few also messy, chaotic and disorganized. Few delays were observed, often 10 to 15 minutes, at a maximum polling stations (PS) opened with a 30 minutes delay. In some instances precinct election commission (PEC) chairpersons were under stress due to large number of observers and queuing voters. A lack of clarity of procedures was noted where observers negatively commented on the process. However, in general procedures were properly followed. Few irregularities were noted, such as ballot boxes not properly sealed, only at one side or with a wrongly coloured seal, or no seals at all (01/65). Ballots were not counted before the opening, or the control sheet not properly filled in. 2. VOTING The atmosphere on election day was in general characterized as calm and quiet with no significant problems reported. Campaigning was not observed. Some underlying tensions were noted especially towards the end of voting (Tbilisi, Gori and Kutaisi). Whilst in the morning long queues and crowded polling stations were observed, in the afternoon there were significantly less voters. The voting process was described mostly as very good, well organized and smoothly. The PECs appeared well prepared and equipped. Observers were friendly received and PECs readily co-operated. Voters understood the procedures. chaotic. PS often were too small, leading to overcrowding and scenarios described as chaotic. At times, due to the overcrowding, the flow of voters was obstructed, but in general this seemed not to compromise the voting process or integrity of the ballot. The registration desks were a bottleneck in many PS. Procedures were mostly followed. Isolated cases of irregularities were reported on. Some voters were turned away (names not on the voter list- VL, changes in address, ID expired, no address on ID card, or ID number did not match VL entry). Family voting was observed in some cases. The inking procedure was identified as a shortcoming. The quality of the ink was not sufficient and could be easily wiped off. In some PS ink was lacking. Inking procedures were applied inconsistent, either the ink was applied before checking the VL, only randomly or not checked at all. In Marneuli voters were not always inked. The number of PEC stamps created confusion (Chiatura). In Kaspi, a number of identical signatures were observed on the VL. In PS 09/DEC 46 Lentekhi persons not on the VL were allowed to vote. In Marneuli PS 18/ DEC 22 several voters were not asked for ID. In PS 25/ DEC 67 Zugdidi a GD proxy found two marked (UNM) ballots in the booth. Bussing of voters was observed (Gori, Terjola, Baghdati, Kharagauli and Kazbegi). In Kazbegi, hundreds of voters were transported by busses to the PSs. In PS 5, the local population prevented those from voting. Groups of unidentified persons standing outside the PS (Tbilisi, Samtskhe-Javakheti and other) were noted in many instances. UNM ( United National Movement) activists were checking who did come to vote in front of PS (Tbilisi, Rustavi, Marneuli), sometimes also checking IDs. This was also reportedly done by GD (Georgian Dream), but rarely observed. There has been a report of ballots being stolen from the desk of a Chairwoman (PS 91/ DEC 32 Gori). The domestic observer who asked to file a complaint about this was denied a chance for the reasons (paraphrasing: If you don’t know who took ballots of the chairwoman’s table then you can’t file a complaint). Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :10 The secretary of the PS 1/DEC 59 Kutaisi forgot to stamp and sign the ballots. The PEC members started to quarrel, the PEC chair lost control of the situation and voting was suspended for 20 minutes. Intimidation of voters Observers of Caspian Strategy Institute observed intimidation of voters at PS 27- elderly women intimidated outside to vote in a specific way, PS 40- allegations that village leaders congregated outside PS to intimidate voters. PS 18/22 Marneuli- PEC chair instructed voters for whom to vote. PS 19/ DEC 19 Tianeti- village leader (gambgebeli) instructed voters whom to vote for. Domestic observers The large and overwhelming presence of domestic observers was observed. At an average there were up to 10 to 15 per PS. In Lanchkhuti 30 to 40 were observed at the opening. A huge number of organizations were accredited. However, often the local observers could not identify whom they actually belong to and referred often to belonging to Georgia Dream, at times United National Movement. Multiple representatives from the same electoral subject were often encountered inside Polling Station. Many domestic observers assumed a proactive role in guiding the work of the PEC, fulfilled duties of PEC members, handed out envelopes, even ballots, or were directing voters. Some were very active and vocal, leading to heated discussions and obstructing/ disrupting the process, mainly by GD. Others were passive and indifferent to the process. NGO observers were in general more active compared to party observers. There were multiple cases of GD and other party observers who said they were not accredited by the CEC, despite their claims that a valid application had been submitted (Gori, Samtredia, Poti and Tkibuli). Persons in orange t-shirts with the writing “observer” (in Georgian and English), some times without accreditation, were observing the process, inside and outside the PS, apparently affiliated with GD (Zugdidi, Batumi andSachkere). GD informed about threatening phone calls (‘to be killed’) and serious cases of intimidation (Kutaisi, Poti ). In the morning a staff of GD office in Vani was reportedly detained. In Telavi PS 6 a GD supporter claims he was physically assaulted by UNM supporters after recording suspicious behaviour outside the PS. Mobile voting was rarely observed, but regarded as transparent with procedures followed. In one case ballot box stuffing was reported in Ozurgeti (see above). In Special polling stations procedures followed (if any voting could be observed). Voters were allowed to vote in both elections. In prisons No. 16 in Rustavi and No. 17 in Marneuli no secrecy of the vote was guaranteed. Video filming was very often noted. There was continuously recording of the entire process, mainly by GD, KK, NGO Former Political Prisoners for People’s Rights, CEC or Media representatives. In general, voters did not appear to be intimidated by the fact. 3. COUNTING The counting process was described as orderly, transparent, well conducted, calm, consistent, professional, perfect or cautious - versus chaotic, awful or warlike. It general, the counting was slow but Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :11 thorough, “according to the book”. The opening of envelopes, the separating envelopes, sorting ballots and preparing documents took at times up to two hours, before the actual counting started. Counting suffered as well from overcrowding. Sometimes the correct order was not followed, or some shortcuts to speed up the process taken. Some problems were caused due to an apparent lack of understanding of procedures. For some PECs the task was too difficult, they were not well prepared, what lead often to lengthy discussions and disputes. Signatures did not match, recounts had to be conducted, reconciliation difficulties were apparent, the unused ballots were not properly accounted for, ballots were not announced aloud (PS49/DEC 28 Dusheti), signatures not counted and nothing was entered in display protocol in PS 11/ DEC 54 Samtredia. Some spoiled ballots (marked for the UNM) were accounted for, while 15 ballots for the GD were invalidated as not stamped. A similar high number of domestic observers were present at the count as noted during the voting. However, interference in the process was less compared to voting. Their behaviour was generally professional and constructive. Most PEC members signed the PEC protocols and agreed with the results. There were only some reports that domestic observers were too active, gave instructions and were involved in heated discussions and at times in the process itself. In Lentekhi District Election Commission (DEC) 46 GD representatives were ordered by their HQ not to sign the protocol. When the mobile ballot box in PS 25/DEC 21 Gardabani was taken back to the PS, it was not properly sealed. As the PEC chairperson saw this, she got furious, took the mobile ballot box, and threw it on the ground that it broke. This caused a major upheaval and conflict among the PEC members. The counting started and proceeded in a chaotic manner, without the chairperson, who was out in the corridor the whole time. Police tried to enter PS 66 in Gldani DEC 10 (Tbilisi) but backed off when chairperson told observers of Caspian Strategy Institute. 4. TABULATION At most DECs the tabulation process was well organized and went smoothly. Proceedings went orderly, efficient, transparent, and a good flow of PECs received was reported on. Some DECs, however, seemed disorganized (Sachkere- messy and crowded, Ninotsminda- crazy, chaotic, where the DEC chair suffered from stress related heart problems and needed to be rushed off to hospital). Long queues were observed at the DECs in Tbilisi, where the DEC staff worked under pressure and was not well organized. Procedures were not applied in a consistent manner, at some tabulation was done manually, while others simply scanned the PEC protocols. In Gardabani (DEC 21) the protocols were not properly checked before tabulated. In Kutaisi, the DEC could not be observed as a big crowd gathered in front of DEC, and the police was blocking the road, leading to a tense situation. Domestic observers were in general more quiet and discreet at DEC level. In Tbilisi, only a small number of domestic observers were observed at the DECs in Tbilisi. Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :12 Election Observation Georgia, Parliamentary Elections, 1 October 2012 Final Report Page :13