Search results

The Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions issued by the IEOM on 19 February 2013 concluded that the election "was generally well-administered and was characterized by a respect for fundamental freedoms. Contestants were able to campaign freely. Media fulfilled their legal obligation to provide balanced coverage, and all contestants made use of their free airtime. At the same time, a lack of impartiality of the public administration, misuse of administrative resources, and cases of pressure on voters were of concern. While election day was calm and orderly, it was marked by undue interference in the process, mainly by proxies representing the incumbent, and some serious violations were observed." (ODIHR/Pll)

The presidential election was professionally and efficiently administered. Candidates campaigned freely and fundamental freedoms of expression, movement, and association were mostly respected. However, the blurring of the line between state and party was at odds with paragraph 5.4 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Allegations of the misuse of state resources and mistrust in public institutions and the judiciary diminished public confidence in the electoral process and should be addressed. The legal framework regulating the presidential election generally provides an adequate basis for the conduct of democratic elections. However, harmonization of applicable legislation is necessary. (…) Overall, the election campaign took place in a competitive environment, with respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms, but largely focused on mutual personal accusations rather than on programmatic issues. (…) (ODIHR/Pll)

The entire electoral process commanded a high level of public confidence. The campaign took place in an open and peaceful environment with no restrictions on freedoms of association or expression. However, the lack of comprehensive and effective campaign finance regulations raised certain concerns among many OSCE/ODIHR EAM interlocutors about transparency, particularly for non-parliamentary parties. (…) Only 15 per cent of all candidates were women and there are no legal requirements to promote their participation. There were no women represented on the Electoral Commission. (ODIHR/Pll)

Elections were organized by the City Hall in a professional manner with voting taking place in a single polling station [6,825 voters were registered for these elections]. While some of the technical preparations were conducted with a limited level of transparency, the election administration enjoyed widespread confidence and none of the electoral contestants expressed concerns about the administration of these elections. (…) Some restrictions of the legal framework go against OSCE commitments, e.g. the denial of the right to vote of citizens with a criminal conviction (…) or the requirement of five years of citizenship to stand as a candidate, as well as the inability to stand individually as an independent candidate.(ODIHR/Pll)

The parliamentary elections were conducted in pluralistic and transparent manner and voters enjoyed a wide choice of political options. The electoral process benefited from a high degree of respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and trust in the impartiality of the election administration. As a result of the economic crisis, the main topics of the campaign concerned household debt and how best to tackle it. The media covered the election campaign extensively, including through a number of televised debates. (…) While parties are obliged to disclose their financial reports, there are no specific requirements concerning the disclosure of their campaign related expenses. (…) The legislation does not clearly prescribe the possibility for a judicial appeal against administrative decisions of election commissions. (ODIHR/Pll)