MONITORING CAMPAIGN OF THE ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT OF THE OF FINAL REPORT

Campaign “Right to Choice” organized a long-term monitoring of all stag- es of the election campaign for President of the Republic of Belarus, from the day when the Chamber of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus appointed the day of elections up to June 30, 2015. On the election day, 11 October 2015, 1286 observers of the campaign worked on 643 polling stations.

About the campaign “Right to Choose 2015”. “Right to Choose 2015” is a company to monitor the presidential , which aimed at preventing violations of the law at all stages of the election campaign, the fixation of violations and rapid reaction. Campaign “Right to Choose 2015” did the best to minimize the number of violations of the law at every polling station, where its observers had an opportunity to observe. Campaign “Right to Choose 2015” brought together eight political struc- tures: the Party of the , the organizing committee of the Belarusian and Freedom and Progress Party, the Belarusian Social Democratic Party (Hramada), human rights and edu- cational association “Movement” For Freedom”, civil campaign “Tell the Truth!”, the Belarusian Party “Green” and the trade union of radio-electronic industry. Campaigners based their work on the experience of observing at Parliament elections in 2008 and 2012, President elections in 2010, the elec- tion of deputies to local Councils of Deputies in 2014.

3 CONTENTS Overall conclusions ...... 7 1. The adverse socio-political context of the election campaign ...... 9 2. Legal regulation of elections ...... 15 3. Formation of the election commissions ...... 17 4. The nomination and registration of presidential candidates ...... 28 5. Campaigning ...... 42 6. Early voting ...... 50 7. Voting on election day and count of votes ...... 57 8. Terms and conditions for the observers activity ...... 65 9. Recommendations of the observation ...... 70 List of Abbreviations...... 72 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 1. Election of the President of the Republic of Belarus were neither free nor fair. Counting of votes didn’t have any transparency. So the results an- nounced by the election commissions do not inspire any confidence. The company included all the negative practices which had previously been the subject of criticism of national and international observers. 2. Territorial (TECs) and precinct (PECs) election commissions were formed from a record low number of representatives of the opposition. Allocated representatives of opposition parties and NGOs were wrongly refused to be included in the commissions in most cases. The mechanism of judicial appeal of decisions, dealing with formation of committees, does not work as an effective means of restoring justice and does not cre- ate any guarantees to all political forces to be represented in the commis- sions. 3. Despite the relatively free conditions of pickets for collection of signa- tures by initiative groups, while nominating candidates and campaign events conducted by registered candidates, freedom of assembly for other subjects was significantly limited by the norms of the law on mass events and by restrictive legal practice. 7 4. When candidates refused from the state financing of their election cam- paigns, their campaigns were not so visible for voters. There have been noticed a huge use of administrative resources and illegal financing of the current president’s campaign from the state budget. Sources of his elec- tion funds were out of public control. Only general data of his funds were published. In the context of total control of the economics from the side of executive power and the domination of state-owned enterprises on the market the current president had much more opportunities to raise funds in the election fund. It violates the principle of equality between the candidates. 5. Early voting had discrepancy between turnout figures announced by the PEC and turnout figures fixed by observers. Evident manipulations of voter lists could aim at artificial increase in turnout figures. In plenty of cases there have been noticed a direct falsification and forgery, including changes in previously compiled PEC protocols. 6. The vast majority of the polling stations with observers had non-trans- parent and secret vote counting. The observers were not able to verify the authenticity of the figures declared by PEC. In most cases PEC dur- ing the vote counting didn’t work as a collegial body, and their members personally counted only part of the bulletins. The overall result at a poll- ing station was done by a chairman or a secretary of PEC. Other mem- bers of the commition and observers were not able to verify the fact that total figures in a final protocol exactly corresponded to the actual results of the vote counting at a polling station. 7. PEC created adverse conditions for the observers: they were wrongly forbidden to take photos and videos at polling stations; in many cases ob- servers were expelled from polling stations. There has been fixed some pressure on the observers at their working places for them to refuse from participating in the monitoring. Besides, there was a great pressure on the participants of the observation campaign at the end of the elections, including dismissal from work.

8 1. T HE ADVERSE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. Presidential election campaign began on 30th of June, when the House of Representatives appointed its decision on the election day. At this time a number of political prisoners were in the jail. Among the political prison- ers (earlier the human rights community developed criteria on the basis of which prisoners could be considered political ones) were Nicholai Dzyadok, Ihar Olinevich, Yaugen Vaskovich, Artsiom Prakapenka, Yury Rubtsou and convicted after the presidential elections of 2010 the ex-president candidate Nikolai Statkevich. They all were in the jail on the day of the election an- nouncement. Although during the campaign these political prisoners were released, the existence of such had a negative impact on the socio-political atmosphere in the country at the first stage of the elections. August 11th, 2015 the Ministry of Internal Affairs five youth activists Maksim Piakarski, Vadzim Zharomski, Viachaslau Kosinierau, Yaraslau Ul- janenkau and a Russian citizen Pavel (last name is unknown) were detained. The last two were later released on bail. On the 20th of August Maksim Pia- karski and Vadzim Zharomski were charged with part 2 of art. 339 of the Criminal Code (“hooliganism committed by a group of persons”) on the fact of political graffiti on the fence near the building in Alsheuski lane, as well as on the building of the former military base in Lynkou str. Besides, they

Maksim Piakarski, Viachaslau Kosinierau, Yaraslau Uljanenkau 9 Yaugen Vaskovich Nikolai Statkevich were charged with art. 341 of the Criminal Code (“Buildings desecration and property destruction”), i.e. the property damage of the individual entrepre- neur (a billboard with the image of the police officers) in Gorki str. in . According to Human Rights Center “Viasna”, the presence of political mo- tives in the actions of the authorities aimed at strengthening of their power by the doers of the executive power allows to consider M. Piakarski, V. Zha- romski, V. Kasinerava as political prisoners. On the fact of unmotivated use of force and the application of less severe bodily damage to Uladzimir Kasin- erau, while his hard detention by the special rapid reaction unit of the inter- nal troops, Ministry of Internal Affairs of Belarus, a criminal case was initi- ated at the end of election campaign. The fact of release of six political prisoners did not change the nature of political regime and did not fundamentally affect the social-political atmo- sphere during the election period. On the 22th of August it was known that the President pardoned six prisoners: Nicholai Dzyadok, Ihar Olinevich, Yaugen Vaskovich, Artsiom Prakapenka, Yury Rubtsou and the ex-president candidate of elections in 2010 Nikolai Statkevich. But if one is released in the form of a pardon, it means that political prisoners have been released on non-rehabilitating grounds. Release of the political prisoners took place on the next day after the finishing of signature collection. At the same time a number of opposition initiative groups called upon the necessity of release of all political prisoners during the campaign. On the eve of the beginning of the signature collection there was an attempt to register the initiative group of political prisoner Mikalai Statkevich for him to be nominated as a presi- 10 1. THE ADVERSE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. dential candidate. But CEC refused to register Mikalai Statkevich’s initia- tive group. Hence, the Supreme Court refused to consider the appeal against this decision. The pressure on political opponents of the current regime. Political re- pressions against the opposition and civil society, which have been expanded since last president elections of 2010, as well as total restrictions of human rights forced many Belarusians to leave the country. Presidential candidates in 2010 Andrei Sannikau, Ales Mikhalevich and others left Belarus. The first did it after a long imprisonment. Although a criminal case against Ales Mikhalevich is still not closed, he returned to Belarus and was under the house arrest during the election campaign in 2015. The leader of the CCP BPF has been in exile since 1996. Restrictions of freedom of association taking place in law and law ap- pliance deprive Belarusian citizens the possibility of realization of the con- stitutional right to participate in elections through public associations and political parties. Despite the change of the law “On civil society organiza- tions” and “On political parties” in 2013, the procedure for the registration of new organizations is still extremely difficult (especially the registration of political parties). There have been established strict requirements for the documents to be submitted for the registration of CSO. But even if all these requirements are met, the Ministry of Justice denies the registration on the basis of technical or minor violations in the design of documents, by giving very vague formulations. For instance, the grounds for refusal in registration of CSOs are the fol- lowing: marking not definite place of work, a mobile phone number instead of home one, an error in the date of birth of one of the founders, brinining the founders of CSOs to the administrative proceedings, typing of docu- ments with the wrong size of font, etc. There is quite spread practice to refuse the registration of CSO, because it used to act as unregistered one, which is banned. As a result, government authorities denied the registration for dozens of CSOs, including human rights associations in 2010-2015. In July 2014 CSO “Pact” was denied to be registered. This CSO was being created to facili- tate the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee on Hu- man Rights of UN. The recommendations were based on individual appeals of Belarusian citizens. On June 10, 2015 the Supreme Court dismissed the founders of CSO “For Fair Elections” for the third time, which aims to be registered for monitoring of the electoral process but it has been refused in registration for the third time (in this case, according to the decision of the Committee of Human Rights at UN, the refusal to register this CSO is ille- 11 gal, and it’s a violation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the Republic of Belarus). The conditions of creation of political parties don’t allow realizing the right to establish new parties. The last time, when a new political party was registered, it was in 2000, when Conservative Christian Party of Belarusian Popular Front had a legal status. In 2010-2014 Belarusian Christian Democ- racy Party, the Belarusian Communist Party of Workers, the local offices of BPF and the “Movement for Freedom” were denied in its registration several times. The founders of the BCD applied for registration of the party for the fifth time during the election campaign, in July 2015. However, the Minis- try of Justice denied registration of BCD. At the same time during the review of documents there was pressure on the founders of the party to force them to renounce their membership in opposition groups (for one, in Klichau and Verhnedvinsk). The lack of registration deprives this party and a number of other parties and CSOs to participate in the electoral process, including nom- inating of their observers and representatives to the election commissions. Moreover, any activity within non-registered parties or CSOs is prohibited and there is a criminal liability by imprisonment for up to two years according to Article 193.1 of the Criminal Code. Freedom of assembly in Belarus is still extremely limited. According to the law any procedure of events is permitted. The authorities ban rallies in most cases. The number of actions that the opposition can arrange legally does not exceed four or five each year. Amendments to the Law “On mass events”, adopted in 2011, even made worse the conditions for the freedom of assem- bly (there is a liability for the dissemination of information about the place and time of actions via the Internet prior to getting of government approval). Unauthorized peaceful assemblies are dispersed, often with a disproportion- ate use of physical force and special means. More than 1 200 people have been sentenced to detention (15 days) and fines for taking part in peaceful assem- blies from January 2010 to August 2014. The use of force against participants of the demonstration against facifi- cated elections in 2010, and incriminating them a criminal article for the par- ticipation in the preparation of the riots were of particular importance. 60 thousand people took part in the on Kastrychnitskaja Square and In- dependence Square in Minsk on December 19, 2010. Four former presidential candidate and 30 Belarusian citizens were sentenced to criminal punishment for this demonstration. Hundreds of people were sentenced to administrative arrest. There were carried out dozens of raids in the offices of political par- ties and CSOs, in the apartments of politicians, journalists, human rights de- 12 1. THE ADVERSE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. fenders and activists. The wave of repression that followed the presidential elections on December 19, 2010 has made the situation of civil and political freedoms dramatically worse. On the eve of the presidential elections of 2015 the situation with the free- dom of assembly has not changed for the better. Despite the correctly filled application the authorities continued to prohibit rallies, meetings and demon- strations. The number of actions that the opposition can arrange legally does not exceed four or five each year. Freedom of assembly remained limited even during the collection of sig- natures. Despite the fact that according to the law the initiative groups can organize pickets in any non-prohibited places without prior notice during the collection of signatures, all the rest actions are banned. The authorities do not give permission for their implementation. For example, the initiative group of Tatsiana Karatkevich was forbidden to arrange a bike ride on July 27 in Minsk to celebrate the 25th anniversary since the Declaration of State Independence of Belarus was adopted. The authorities of Minsk City Council informed the politician that the rally would be considered a violation of the law “On mass events”, and the organizers would be brought to the administrative liability. Freedom of expression, restrictions on the activities of the Mass Media and the Internet. On the eve of the election there is the increasing pressure on journalists working with foreign media without the accreditation of the Min- istry of Foreign Affairs as a foreign correspondent. The reason for fines of jour- nalists was not the content of publications, but the fact of their appearance in the foreign media. According to the Belarusian Association of Journalists, during January-July 2015 the courts fined the journalists for cooperating with foreign media 26 times. Only in June the journalists were prosecuted 8 times. On the 19th of August in Berezovka (Grodno region) policemen, wearing the civilian clothes, raided the apartment of the journalist, a member of BPF Yury Dziashuk. The fact of milder persecution of foreign journalists took place only at the end of August, at the final stage of the election campaign. Along with the same restrictions of freedom of expression, new restrictions appeared on the eve of the election campaign. It should be noticed that due to these restrictions, traditionally used by the Belarusian authorities, Belarus has been criticized by human rights organizations. On January 1, 2015 amendments to the Law «On mass media» came into force. It spreads the Mass Media responsibility on websites, which have to keep track of comments of visitors. The Ministry of Information has got the right to block an access to online resources (including foreign ones) without the court decision. On 18th of June this new credential was used in practice: the site kyky.org was blocked. After delete of the disputed material access 13 to the site was restored. Even before this event the Ministry of Information sent requests to a number of sites for them to submit the information about their owners (music site “A dozen of hits,” the site of the United Civil Party, the site of Radio Racyia, the site “Free Region” and others). These sites used to receive several warnings about being liable for spreading false information that could harm the state or public interests. These letters also noted that two and more warnings during a year, as well as not eliminating the violations de- manding by the state body the access to web sites may be limited. At the same time it was not specified any violation that caused a warning. At the beginning of 2015 the regional newspapers “Intex-Press” (Baranav- ichy), “Gantsevichi Chas” (Gantsevichi), “Barysau news”, “Advertising Bar- zhomi” (Barysau), “Slonim Newspaper” (Slonim) and the national newspaper “Novy Chas” received warnings from the Ministry of Information for minor violations in the formulation of their output. In January-March 2015, accord- ing to the Belarusian Association of Journalists, the Ministry of Information issued 27 warnings for 26 media. On January 1, 2015 a decree of president № 6 “On urgent measures to com- bat drug trafficking” came into effect. It was signed on December 28, 2014. Besides, it affects the activity of “information resources located in the global internet”. As the Belarusian Association of Journalists says, it is a threat to freedom of expression. In particular, it the owners of Internet resources are obliged to keep track of the content and comments. The Ministry of Internal Affairs has a right to limit access to information resources. There has been en- tered the administrative liability of the owners of Internet resources, if they don’t meet requirements of the Ministry of Information dealing with the ne- cessity to remove materials aimed at drug trafficking. Ministry of Communication and Informatization and Operational and An- alytical Centre under the President affirmed “Regulation on the limitation of access to information resources (their components), which are in the World Wide Web” on February 19, 2015. This document provides the blocking of Internet resources, means of anonymity (proxy servers, anonymous networks like Tor and others), which allows users of Internet services to access Internet resources, access to which is limited. This Regulation doesn’t provide any ju- dicial appeal of decisions of the Ministry of information about blocking. Un- like the previous order, where the access to the sites of the “black list” was obligatory limited only for public authorities, institutions of education and culture, now blocking of these sites is for all users from Belarus.

14 2. LEGAL REGULATION OF ELECTIONS

Reform of the Electoral Code. Due to the Law of November 25, 2013 “On amendments and additions to some laws of the Republic of Belarus on elec- tions and referenda” the Electoral Code of the Republic of Belarus was amend- ed. These changes are designed without the participation of the public, against the requirements of political parties and the text of the bill was not known to the public prior to its consideration by the House of Representatives. As a re- sult, according to the opposition, this document further limited the opportuni- ties of participants in the electoral process: the-not-voting campaign has been banned, state funding for election campaign of candidates has been canceled and a number of other restrictions have been introduced. Wherein, this new law did not solve the main problems of Belarusian electoral legislation and practice, including the conditions of formation of election commissions. Notes of local observers as well as observers of the ODIHR OSCE were not taken into account when making changes to the Electoral Code. It is worth knowing that the ban on advertising for non-participation in the elections was extended to all participants in the electoral process: both political parties and candidates and ordinary citizens. Violation of this prohi- bition can be regarded as an administrative offense. The introduction of such a rule is contrary to the principles of free elections and freedom of agitation. This ban has a particular significance in Belarusian conditions: non-free and unfair nature of the election has become evident to the whole society, thus a number of political representatives in opposition called for its boycott during the presidential elections in 2015. The proposals of the opposition and civil society. On April 8, 2015 or- ganizations-participant of the campaign “Right to choice” directed their pro- posals to improve the electoral legislation to the subjects of legislative initia- tive: the House of Representatives and Council of Republic of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus, as well as the CEC. The bill, prepared by the opposition parties, was presented the concrete proposals to prevent fraud during the early voting, to increase the powers of observers and politi- cal parties as the participants in the electoral process and to prevent the use of administrative resources. Taking into account the experience of previous campaigns it was proposed to introduce additional guarantees for the presi- dential candidates, including their personal security and possibility to send their representatives to election commissions, including PEC. However, the subjects of legislative initiative refused to consider the bill in the parliament, and CEC avoided its duty to improve the electoral legislation. 15 As soon as the announcement of presidential elections took place in July, the company “Human rights activists for free elections” sent to the Central Election Commission its proposals for improving the legal framework of the electoral process. These proposals did not include changes in existing laws and could be implemented at the level of methodological explanations or decisions of the CEC. There have been proposed definite steps, which could manage to ensure the transparency of the electoral process: 1) the publica- tion of data on voting results on every polling station; 2) obligatory submit- ting of filled copies of the protocol on the results of the vote for observers; 3) establishing of a clear procedure for the counting of votes, where every tick on every bulletin is announced aloud to the audience with its demonstration to all members of election commissions and observers. However, these pro- posals of human rights observers were rejected by CEC. Under such conditions, it is necessary to state that the legal regulation of the electoral process in Belarus remains consistently poor and unable to ensure free and fair elections. Therefore, it is impossible to recognize the es- sential statements of CEC before the elections about the increased use of transparent bulletin boxes. This fact cannot increase the transparency of the elections without fulfilling other conditions.

16 3. FORMATION OF THE ELECTION COMMISSIONS

Legal regulation. According to article 27 of the Electoral Code, the fol- lowing electoral commissions provide the preparation and implementation of elections: (6 regional commissions, 1 Minsk city commission, 118 regional ones, 4 city commissions in regional cities, 24 district commissions in cities with district division), in which the selection took place before 19 July 2015, and the decision to form the commissions was taken no later than July 22. DEC, in which the selection started after the formation of polling sta- tions and lasted until August 23, and the decision to form the commissions was taken no later than August 26th. According to part 2 of Article 34 of the Electoral Code, at least one third of the committion members must be representatives of political parties and other CSOs. The commissions cannot include judges, prosecutors, heads of local executive and administrative councils. State servants should not be more than 1/3 of the commission. At meetings of the local authorities, which form the commission, the representatives of the actors who have nominated their representatives to the commission have the right to take part in these meetings. Decisions of bodies that formed the commission may be appealed within three days from the day when the court takes the actors who nominated their representatives to the commissions. The court considers the complaint within three days, its decision is final and cannot be appealed. In fact, the changes made in 2013 to the Electoral Code, have not done both the order of commissions forming and their nominating procedures. However, Article 35 of the Electoral Code was added by the requirement to indicate party affiliation of the person nominated to the election com- missions of all levels, whether he/she is allocated from the party (CSO), or from the labor collective or citizens through the submitting of the applica- tion. Informing of the election commissions formation. Regional local au- thorities widely used their internet websites to inform about the place and time of the meeting dealing with formation of the TEC. However, regional and city local authorities not always used this opportunity: information about the time and place of the meeting on the formation of the TEC some- times appear on the web pages of some local authorities very late or did not appear at all. Actors who nominated their representatives to the TECs and PECs, in most cases, had the opportunity to attend the meetings of the lo-

17 cal authorities on the formation of commissions. At the same time, this pos- sibility was not given to observers. Web sites of Vitebsk City Council and Grodno City Council misinformed the society about the time of documents submitting while the nominating to TEC: on their sites it was stated that on July 19 (the last day, when it was possible to be nominated in the commissions) reception of documents would not be implemented. Only when the members of Grodno city organization of the Belarusian Popular Front complained to CEC, misinformation was cor- rected. At the same time, the representative of the BPF Maladzechna Volga Lah- vinovich on July 17 at 16:45 received a refusal that her documents for nomi- nation of the party representatives to TEC were not accepted, because there was simply nobody who could take them. The official website of Maladzech- na Regional Council did not contain any information about the place and time when the documents could be taken. But such information should be announced according to part 2 of ruling № 22 of CEC dated from 01.07.2015 “On informing the citizens about the work on the preparation and realiz- ing of elections of the President of the Republic of Belarus in 2015 “. But neither on July 17 (the day when the representative of Belarusian Popular Front addressed Maladzechna Regional Council) nor on July 19 (the dead- line) such information did not appear on the website. Later the information about already approved staff of the local TEC (13 people) was set on the site of Maladzechna Regional Council. 18 3. FORMATION OF THE ELECTION COMMISSIONS

Nomination of TEC. 63 representative from the opposition groups were nominated to TEC, but only 10 persons were included in TEC (or 15.87% of the number of nominees). The interest of the representatives of the opposi- tion included in TEC is even less than at last presidential election (2010). Out of 71 nominees of the opposition, 14 ones became the members of the commission (or 19.71% of the number of nominees). Thus, despite roughly the same number of candidates nominated by the opposition, the number of members from the opposition to the TEC has decreased comparing to previ- ous presidential elections (2010).

Table 1: Nomination and inclusion of different actors into TEC as compared to previous presidential elections

President elections-2010 President elections-2015

Суб’ек т вылучэння nominated included % from number of nominated nominated included % from number of nominated From the citizens 1 077 670 62,20 1 025 640 62,43 through applications

From labor collectives 427 330 77,28 308 216 70,12

From CSOs 1 179 1 000 84,81 1 290 1 060 82,17

including

From political parties: 193 120 62,17 242 149 61,57

Belarusian agriculture 1 1 100,00 party Belarusian Party of the 36 5 13,88 39 4 10,25 Left “Fair World” Belarusian social- democratic party 4 1 25,00 3 1 33,33 (Hramada) Belarusian social-sport 1 0 0,00 4 2 50,00 party Commnist party 94 87 92,55 107 94 87,85 of Belarus Liberal-democratic Party 7 4 57,14 11 4 36,36

19 President elections-2010 President elections-2015

Суб’ек т вылучэння nominated included % from number of nominated nominated included % from number of nominated

United Civil Party 24 6 25,00 10 3 30,00

Party BPF 7 2 28,57 11 2 18,18

Republican Party 1 0 0,00 1 0 0,00

Republican party of 18 14 77,77 56 39 69,64 labor and fairness

Other CSOs:

Belaja Rus 151 147 97,35 162 146 90,12

Belarusian republican 142 142 100,00 148 130 87,83 union of youth Belarusian union of 116 111 95,68 125 119 95,2 women Belarusian civil 103 95 92,23 127 107 84,25 assosiation of veterans

FTUB 269 234 86,98 287 241 83,97

Other CSOs 205 151 73,65 199 168 84,42

TOTAL 2 683 2 000 74,54 2 623 1 916 73,04

The campaign “Right to choice” notes that at the stage of nomination to TEC the restrictions on registration of CSOs and political parties had a large negative impact. The representatives of local organizations of parties and CSOs has the right to be nominated to the commissions (for these ac- tors there is a quota of not less than 1/3 of the commission membership). Therefore, those parties and groups that face the refusal of their official status registration are unable to apply for the participating in the election commissions. Therefore, they cannot freely participate in the electoral process. 20 3. FORMATION OF THE ELECTION COMMISSIONS

Out of 25 nominees from the organizations-representatives of the cam- paign “Right to Choice” (who were nominated both from the organizations and by collecting signatures) only 3 people were included into TEC: repre- sentatives of Belarusian Popular Front Kastus Smolikau and Zmicier Kas- piarovich, respectively,entered Vitebsk regional commission and Minsk city commission, and the representative of Belarusian Social Democratic Party (Hramada) Nadzeya Shomchanka became a member of election commission in Zavodskoy district in the city of Minsk. Thus, only 12% of the nominated representatives of the campaign “Right to Choice” were included in TEC. In most cases, the refusals to include representatives of the democratic forces in the commissions were not explained. The meetings on forming of the commissions had no any debate on the nominees, but decisions were taken by approval of pre-prepared lists. Representatives of the opposition parties occasionally were included in TEC. However, the applications from loyal-to-the-authorities parties and CSOs were mostly satisfied. Created TEC, in most cases, worked without the participation of representatives of opposition political parties. More- over, on the contrary, representatives of political parties and CSOs that support the current government had an absolute majority in the commis- sions. Unlike the presidential elections of 2010, none of TEC had at least two members of the opposition. 93.5% of TEC worked without any control from the side of the opposi- tion, because none of the nominated representatives of democratic parties and associations was not included there. Since, according to the law, the formation of election commissions is the duty of local authorities, at the first stage of the election campaign the au- thorities violate the principle of equality of rights of political parties and associations, regardless to their political principles about the organization and implementation of elections. TECs consisted almost exclusively of the most loyal-to-the-authorities officials, who are ready to fulfill any its or- der. On these conditions, the ability to ensure transparent and democratic electoral procedures by such commissions, as well as to provide free and fair elections, while maintaining the equality of rights of all the presidential candidates, is highly questionable. Even at the stage of TEC formation, the campaign had the-usual-for-Belarus scenario: no participation of opposition parties and associations in the work of actors, who are responsible for the preparation and implementation of elections. It showed inequality of condi- tions in the election campaign, undermined the credibility of the election procedure from the side of the society and gave reason to distrust the elec- tion results. 21 The right to appeal the refusal to include in TEC was used by the orga- nizational structures of the Belarusian Party of the Left “Fair World”, BPF, voters that were nominated by collecting signatures from SCO “Movement For Freedom” and others. The appeals were considered in Brest, , Minsk regional court and in the court of Minsk. None of the complaints was satisfied. Thus, the institution of judicial review of the non-inclusion in elec- tion commissions in Belarus exist only “on paper.” Thus, it cannot be an ef- fective means to review the membership of election commissions. It is worth noting that even before the stage of TEC, there were signs for the illegal manipulation of the votes by local authorities. For example, Goro- dok district council announced the work on “clarifying of oral and written re- quests from voters who want to vote on the place of residence” in July. Mean- while, such requests from voters should be submitted only to TEC, which at that time, could not be formed yet according to the calendar of the election campaign. Nomination of PEC. The negative tendency was kept in the formation of PEC, which directly organize the vote. Even compared with the previous election campaigns, (for example, parliamentary elections in 2012, presidential elections in 2010) scanty representation of opposition was significantly reduced: we can only talk about individuals of opposition parties included in PEC. Local authorities established 6080 polling stations in Belarus. 49 polling stations were established outside of Belarus. The organizational structures of political parties and CSOs (regional, district, city departments and primary organizations) have the right to nominate their members of PEC. Besides, labor collectives and citizens also can be nominated to PEC by submitting at least 10 signatures of voters residing in territory of the polling station, and a nominee must reside in the area. Political parties and CSOs, which have been denied registration (BCD, the campaign “Tell the Truth!” and others), or who have been denied registration in local organization/party structures (CSOs “Movement” For Freedom “and others) did not have opportunity to nominate their representatives to PEC. Regional local authorities widely used their internet websites to inform about the place and time of the meeting dealing with formation of the TEC. However, regional and city local authorities not always used this opportu- nity: information about the time and place of the meeting on the formation of the TEC sometimes appear on the web pages of some local authorities very late or did not appear at all. Actors who nominated their representatives to 22 3. FORMATION OF THE ELECTION COMMISSIONS

PECs, in most cases, had the opportunity to attend the meetings of the local authorities on the formation of commissions. At the same time, this possibil- ity was not given to observers. In most cases, the meetings on forming of the commissions were organized by local authorities as a formal. There was no any debate on the nominees, but decisions were taken by approval of pre-prepared list of PEC members. In some cases the text of the decision was not told the audience. Opposition parties and associations, including the actors of “Right to Choose 2015”, actively nominated their representatives to PEC. The num- ber of members of opposition organizations in PEC was 516 people. This number was lower than in presidential elections-2010 and parliamentary elections-2012, but it increased slightly in comparison with last election campaign (elections to the local councils-2014, when opposition parties nominated 372 representatives in PECs). Despite this fact, the authorities refused to include representatives of the opposition in PEC in most cases.

Table 2: Nomination and inclusion of different actors into PEC as compared to previous presidential elections

President election-2010 President election-2015

Actor of nomination nominated included % from number of nominated nominated included % from number of nominated From citizens through 34 867 27 003 77,44 28 964 24 781 85,55 applications

From labor collectives 16 305 14 192 87,04 11 737 9 621 81,97

From CSOs 32 862 29 620 90,13 36 090 32 539 90,16

including

From political parties: 2 881 1 769 61,40 3 826 2 936 76,73

Belarusian agriculture 147 144 97,95 674 610 90,50 party Belarusian part of the Left 281 78 27,75 147 21 14,28 “Fair world”

23 President election-2010 President election-2015

Actor of nomination nominated included % from number of nominated nominated included % from number of nominated Belarusian social- democratic party 48 10 20,83 49 3 6,12 (Hramada) Belarusian social-sport 420 406 96,66 687 635 92,43 party Communist party of 705 545 77,30 919 735 79,97 Belarus

United Civil Party 507 54 10,65 172 4 2,32

Party “Belarusian social-democratic 29 5 17,24 - - - Hramada”

Party BPF 208 36 17,30 96 2 2,08

Republican party 68 63 92,64 - - -

Republican party of 468 428 91,45 1 082 926 85,58 labor and fairness

Non-party CSOs: 29 981 27 851 92,89 32 264 29 603 91,75

Belaja Rus 4 313 3 925 91,00 4 765 4 528 95,02

Belarusian republican 4 219 3 860 91,49 3 873 3 290 84,94 union of youth Belarusian union of 4 221 4 126 97,74 4 417 4 190 94,86 wonem Belarusian civil 2 559 2 222 86,83 3 136 2 806 89,47 association of veterans

FTUB 10 117 9 556 94,45 9 732 9 005 92,52

ABL - - - 1 1 100,00

BPF “Adradzhenne” - - - 51 1 1,96

24 3. FORMATION OF THE ELECTION COMMISSIONS

President election-2010 President election-2015

Actor of nomination nominated included % from number of nominated nominated included % from number of nominated

Other CSOs: 4 552 4 162 91,43 6 295 5 782 91,85

TOTAL 84 034 70 815 84,26 76 791 66 941 87,17

*Not including the commissions at the polling stations overseas Belarus.

In addition to this number, 49 PECs, formed outside the Republic of Be- larus, includ 244 employees of diplomatic missions (consular offices). The BPF party and CSO BPF “Adradzhenne”- members of the opposition, nomi- nated their representatives for these commissions: seven representatives were nominated to PEC in Warsaw, Bialystok, Moscow, Prague and Vilnius, as well as in Washington. None of the representatives of the opposition was not included in the commission. From the organizations participants of the campaign “Right to Choose 2015” 374 people were nominated to PEC (both from registered organi- zational structures and by collecting signatures). But only 6 people be- came members of PEC: 3 representatives of Belarusian Social Democratic Party (one in Brest, Vitebsk and Minsk regions), 2 representatives of the BPF (both in the Brest region) and one representative of the NGO BPF “Adradzhenne” (Grodno region). Totally 516 representatives of opposition groups were nominated to PEC, but only 32 people were included there (or 6.2% of the number of nominees). The applications from the-loyal-to-the-authorities political parties and CSOs were accepted: 79-95% of the staff of these parties and CSOs was included into PECs. It is much higher than the percentage of inclusion of opposition representatives in PECs. The interest of the representatives of the opposition included in PEC is even less than at last presidential election-2010, when PECs consisted of 17.1% of the number of representatives nominated by the opposition. Thus, despite the roughly the same number of candidates nominated by the opposi- tion, comparig to previous presidential elections-2010, the number of mem- bers of the opposition in PEC became significantly less. 25 Created TEC, in most cases, worked without the participation of repre- sentatives of opposition political parties. Moreover, on the contrary, repre- sentatives of political parties and CSOs that support the current government had an absolute majority in the commissions. Like TECs, none of PEC had at least two members of the opposition. 99.45% of PEC worked without any control from the side of the oppo- sition, because none of the nominated representatives of democratic parties and associations was not included there. It is worth knowing that in Minsk, none of the opposition parties was not included in the PEC: in the capital, PEC was represented only by loyal-to- the-authorities political parties and CSOs. The same occurred during the elections of deputies of local Councils of Deputies in 2014 and during the parliamentary elections of 2012. The presidential elections-2010 were the last elections when the opposition worked in PEC in Minsk. The number of PECs, which are not formed in a necessary way (up to 19 members of the commission), significantly increased in comparison with the previous election campaigns. However, the representatives of the opposition parties were still refused to be included in PEC, even when it was formed not as complete as necessary. The organizational bodies of BPF appealed decisions about refusing to in- clude BPF representatives in PEC in the court. Complaints from BPF were submitted into the courts of Pershamaiski, Savietski, Zavadski, Frunzenski and Central district of Minsk, as well as into the courts of Minsk, Slutsk and Soligorsk districts of Minsk region, Berezovsky district court and others. The motive of these complaints was to demonstrate the injustice of the electoral system of Belarus. 26 3. FORMATION OF THE ELECTION COMMISSIONS

For example, 72 representatives of the organization “” were in- cluded (out of 73 nominees) in PECs of the Soviet district of Minsk, as well as all the nominated representatives of the Red Cross, the Fund for Peace and the Youth Union became the members of PECs. However, none of 29 representatives of BPF was not included in PECs of this area. However, the Sovietsky district court dismissed the complaint against it and left the deci- sion of the Soviet district council, which formed PECs, valid. Courts usually do not meet the complaints of opposition groups, even if at trial there are great violations from the side of loyal-to-the-authorities po- litical parties and CSOs, whose representatives were included in PEC. For example, when considering complaints about the council of Pervomaisky dis- trict of Minsk, a great violation of the procedure of nomination was done by loyal-to-the-authorities political parties (Social and Sports Party, Republi- can Party of Labour and Justice) and labor collectives: there was not all nec- essary information demanded by the Electoral Code in the protocols of these parties. However, the court left the decision on the formation of PEC in the area valid. Thus, the PEC had members who were nominated with violations. In some cases, there were a violation of part 2 article 34 of the Electoral Code, according to which at least one third of PEC members must be repre- sentatives of political parties and CSOs. For example, Minsk Region Coun- cil didn’t include any representative of political parties in the second Senno commission №83. So, the representative of Belarusian Popular Front was re- fused to be included, and PEC was formed exclusively from the representa- tives of “other associations”, labor groups and ordinary citizens. However, on August 31 the decision of the court of Minsk district left the membership of this PEC unchanged.

27 4. THE NOMINATION AND REGISTRATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

On June 30, 2015 the House of Representatives of the National As- sembly made the decision about the elections, then initiative groups should have submitted the list of an initiative group to CEC until July 17. It should include at least 100 people. The innovation of these elec- tions was that every member of an initiative group should put down his/ her passport number in lists of the initiative groups. It seems that the initiative groups of the elections-2015 had significantly fewer members than previous election campaigns. Registration of initiative groups. In total, the CEC received 14 appli- cations for registration of initiative groups (besides, one more applica- tion was submitted after the deadline for receipt of applications for the registration of groups). Yuri Shulgan, who planned to be a candidate for the presidency with the support of the Belarusian Party “The Greens”, was unable to submit an application for registration of the initiative group, because on July 17 he was not allowed to enter the building of CEC, as he was detained in front of the building by the police. Potential candidate was accused of being intoxicated in a public place. The politician spent two days in the detention center before the trial and, eventually, lost the opportunity to apply. On July 20 the court of Moscow district of Minsk sentenced Yuri Shulgan and the head of his staff Pauliuk Konovalchik to pay the fines of 30 base amounts for hooliganism (this phenomenon appeared after their arrest). It should be noted that unreasonable and illegal arrests on charg- es of hooliganism are one of the most common ways of legal detentions that the authorities of Belarus use for isolation of their political oppo- nents. CEC decided to register 8 initiative groups: Aliaxander Lukash- enko (current president), Siargei Kalyakin (Belarusian Left Party “Fair World”), Siargei Haidukevich (Liberal Democratic Party), Tatsiana Karatkevich (member of the Belarusian Social Democratic party (Hra- mada), who was nominated by the support of “Tell the Truth” and BPF), Anatoli Liabedzka (United Civil Party), Victar Tsareshchanka (out-of- party), Zhana Romanouskaia (out-of-party) and Mukalai Ulakhovich (Belarusian Patriotic Party). The other initiative groups were denied registration for various reasons: due to the size of the initiative group, ap- plying by mail, nonresidency in Belarus over the past 10 years. 28 4. THE NOMINATION AND REGISTRATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Table 3. Registration of initiative groups of citizens for nomination of presidential candidates com- pared to previous elections

Number of applications for Year of elections Registered initiative groups initiative group registration 2001 26 22 2006 8 8 2010 19 17 2015 14 8 The refusal to register an initiative group for nominating of Mikalai Statkevich is very special because it has a political character. This ini- tiative group included more than 1700 people. However, CEC refused to register the initiative group for two reasons: 1) Mikalai Statkevich is cur- rently in jail and, according to article 4 of the Electoral Code, persons deprived of their freedom have no right to participate in elections; 2) an application for registration of the initiative group had been signed and filed with the head of the initiative group of Marina Adamovich (Mikalai Statkevich’s wife), while article 61 of the Electoral Code provides only the submission of the application through a representative, and the ap- plication must be signed by the nominated person himself. The members of the initiative group did not agree with the decision and appealed to the Supreme Court, but it refused to consider it. The grounds for refusal was the absence of a handwritten signature of the pol- itician under the appeal. Thus, through politically motivated illegal sentence, Mikalai Statkev- ich was unable to be nominated as a candidate. However, the prohibition of registration of a prisoners as a candidate can not be a valid ground for refusing registration of the initiative group: according to the norms of the Election Code. The issues if a nominated person comply with the se- lection criteria should be considered at the stage of registration of a can- didate after the collecting of signatures. Thus, the presence or absence of the right of Mikalai Statkevich to be nominated as a candidates should not have influenced the decision for registration of the initiative group. The collection of signatures for the presidential nomination. The plac- es prohibited for pickets for collection of signatures were defined accord- ing to the schedule of the company, until July 17. According to estimates of long-term observers of the campaign “Right to Choice”, in most cases, local authorities in determining the places, prohibited to collect signa- tures, did not limit the work of the initiatives groups. However, in some cities the list of places, where the collection of signatures was prohibited, included the most crowded places. In Minsk underground passages were 29 A. Lukashenko S. Kalyakin S. Haidukevich T. Karatkevich

A. Liabedzka V. Tsareshchanka Z. Romanouskaia M. Ulakhovich on the list of forbidden places, unlike the elections-2010. When determin- ing the prohibited places to collect signatures, the local authorities did not use common principles: criteria of restrictions varied from city to city. According to the requirements of the Electoral Code, the collection of signatures took place from July 23 to August 21. Eight registered initia- tive groups should have collected at least 100,000 signatures of voters to nominate candidates to the presidency. Each voter has the right to sign in support of several candidates, but not more than once in favor of the nomination of one candidate. The participation of the administration in collecting signatures, force to collect signatures and reward of voters for signatures are prohibited. Initiative groups are banned to involve officials in their working hours into the nominating activity. Violation of these demands can be the ground for caution or refusal to register a presidential candidate. The collection of signatures took place from July 23 to August 21. According to long-term observers of the campaign “Right to choice”, the collection of signatures by means of pickets carried out all initiative groups. Pickets of Mikalai Ulakhovich initiative group and Zhana Rama- nouskaja initiative group were noted as the fewest ones. 30 4. THE NOMINATION AND REGISTRATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

The observers noted the facts where initiatives groups were dis- turbed to collect signatures. In Brest, on July 23 Alina Lytvynchuk, UCP member, was detained directly at the train station upon her ar- rival from Minsk. She was carrying member IDs of the initiative group of Anatol Lyabedzka, UCP leader. As a result, in Brest the initiative group of the candidate had to start collecting signatures later because of the lack of IDs. On July 24, guards on the market Zhdanovichi in the Minsk region did not give members of Anatol Lyabedzka initiative group to collect sig- natures for the nomination of the leader of the United Civil Party as a presidential candidate. Observers from the reported that employees of the com- pany “Belorusneft” refused to put signatures for opposition candidates on the grounds that the company administration threatened them with dis- missal for such an act. On July 27, a member of the initiative group of Tatiana Karatkev- ich in Maladzechna, Valiantsin Tsishkou, was arrested by the police and taken to the police department of Maladzechna. After consideration Val- iantsin Tsishkou was apologized. On July 29, hooligans in Novopolotsk attacked the picket in support of Tatiana Karatkevich. The applications were submitted to the police department and the city commission on elections because of the incident. Similar acts of hooliganism committed against pickets for collecting signatures in support of Anatol Lyabedzka in Grodno on August 3. On August 1 unidentified men tried to prevent the collection of signatures by the initiative group of Tatiana Karatkev- ich during the celebration of the City Day in Sovietskaja street in Brest. On July 29, there was the search in the apartment BPF member Vi- told Ashurok, a member of the initiative group of Tatiana Karatkevich in town Berezovka in Grodno region. Employees of the investigative com- mittee seized activist’s computer, printer and a flash card. He said that the reason for the search was the flash-mob that was arranged by un- known people near the entrance of the transport department of the glass factory “Neman”. Later, searches took place in other seven flats of Ber- ezovka residents, including members of BPF and members of the initia- tive group of Tatiana Karatkevich. Office equipment confiscated during these searches were returned only after the end of the election campaign. On July 27, Minsk city council banned Tatiana Karatkevich to make a bike ride from one of the pickets to another in Minsk. The authorities ex- plained that this bike ride would be considered as an unauthorized mass event, for which participants will be brought to administrative liability. 31 On July 29, well-known Belarusian musician and writer Leanid Zubarau was detained because he treated UCP members at picket to ice cream. On August 16 the members of BPF Party Aliaxander Shautsou and Valiantsina Schetnikava, members of the initiative group of Tatiana Karatkevich were detained in Mogilev. BPF activist was collecting sig- natures with a white-red-white flag at Vilenski market in Mogilev. Ac- cording to the chairman of the city BPF Party organization Valiantsina Schetnikava, three members of special forces of the police tried to take the flag, but an activist was defending the symbol. Finally, they took both him and the flag. Some members of initiative groups actively used the election cam- paign to bring society attention to political issues. On August 11, in Ba- bruisk, members of initiative groups of Anatol Lyabedzka and Tatiana Karatkevich were wearing t-shirts with the image of political prisoner Mikalai Statkevich. Besides, they set his picture on their boards; they in- formed people of the personality of the political prisoner in Belarus. On July 28 initiative group of Anatol Lyabedzka in Minsk staged a picket dedicated to the theme of disappearance of opposition politicians. On August 4, it was a picket on the theme of political prisoners. On 18 Au- gust – the picket “There is no fair elections without freedom of expres- sion.” On July 27, the initiative group of Tatiana Karatkevich arranged the picket on Independence Avenue in Minsk to celebrate the 25th an- nivesary of adoption of the Declaration of State Independence of Belar- us. On August 21, in Minsk, BPF members as members of the initiative group of Tatiana Karatkevich staged a rally “Avenue of the national flag.” The conducting of these thematic pickets sometimes faced contradiction of government agencies and TEC. Therefore, on July 28, during a rally TEC made an oral remark to Anatol Lyabedzka (not based on the law); on August 21 a picket of Tatiana Karatkevich did not take place at the announced-in-advance bridge, because it was suddenly closed for repair. On August 4, members of the initiative group of Anatol Lyabedzka or- ganized a picket opposite the main KGB building in Minsk, where the party handed out campaign materials, expressed demands to release po- litical prisoners. On August 12, Minsk City Territorial Election Commis- sion has asked the head of the initiative group of Viktar Karnienka not violate the law and distribute propaganda during the pickets aiming at collecting signatures. Abuse of administrative resources by the initiative group of Lukashenka. According to article 61 of the Electoral Code, the participation of the admin- 32 4. THE NOMINATION AND REGISTRATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

istration of an organization in the process of collecting signatures, as well as force to collect signatures and reward the voters for signatures are not al- lowed. Violation of this norm may be a reason for denial of registration of a presidential candidate. This norm of the legislation was fully violated by the initiative group for nominating of . The signatures for nominating Alexander Lukashenko were collected at pickets, decorated with symbols of the Federation of Trade Unions of Be- larus, the Belarusian Republican Youth League and the Communist Party of Belarus. It should be noted that these organizations are funded by the state from the national and local budgets. For example, 43 billion rubles were spent from the national budget for Belarusian Republican Youth Union in 2014, and 50 billion rubles – in 2015. Besides, these organizations have preferential rates for rent of offices of the state property. During the consideration of a complaint of Belarusian Popular Front in CEC for violations by Lukashenka’s initiative group, the head of the initiative group of Mikhail Orda, (he is also head of the FPB), he confirmed that while collecting signatures for Lukashenko he used the post- ers and boards made for the funds of the FPB. However, CEC did not con- sider it a violation of the law and the reason for the refusal to registrate the initiative group of this candidate, who attracted funds of the CSO beyond the legislation to donate the election fund. 33 Tatsiana Karatkevich implemented a bike ride from one of the pickets, aimed at signature collection, to another one in Minsk According to the campaign “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elec- tions”, in Krychau the staff of secondary school # 5, educational estab- lishment “Krychausky State Vocational College of Agronomy” and RUE “Krychausky plant rubber products” were ordered to bring the passport and give signatures in support of Lukashenka. The administration of branch of “BelAZ”, “Mogilev Autoworks named after Kirov,” “ Mogilev Regional Medi- cal and Diagnostic Center,” etc acted similarly. In Brest Electromechanical Plant administration organized the collection of signatures for Lukashenka during working hours. The employees of “Mogilevkhimvolokno” company (Mogilev) said that the administration of the company organized collecting of signatures for Lukashenka during working hours since July 23. People out of the initiative group collected signatures. On July 27, a physician of city clinic № 6 in Grodno asked the patient to sign up for the nomination of Al- exander Lukashenko. Mogilev administration of Kirov Plant organized a col- lection of signatures for the same candidate. On July 29, at secondary school № 27 in Gomel, journalists and human rights Victar Adzinochanka noticed 12 people who were sitting at the director’s office with their passports and they explained that they had come “to elect the President.” In Soligorsk, an employee of the Center for Employment demanded the visitors during the 34 4. THE NOMINATION AND REGISTRATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

study to sign up for Lukashenko. In Mikoshevichi (Brest region), the admin- istrations of district hospital and the company RUPP “Granite” participated in the organization of collection of signatures for Lukashenka. This fact was recorded. In town Berezovka, Lida district, the chairperson of communal ser- vices ordered his employees (who were not members of the initiative groups) to collect at least one signature sheet – 16 signatures – for Lukashenko. In Minsk, the administration of refrigerator plant “Atlant” organized a collec- tion of signatures for nomination of Alexander Lukashenko through the engi- neers of workshops. In many enterprises, the employees were forced to sign in support of Lu- kashenka during working hours. For example, it happened in the workshops of the Gomel branch of the Belarusian Railway, on Porcelain Facto- ry, Dobrush paper factory and Dobrush mill and bakery. The administration representatives collected signatures during working hours at the company of BelAZ (Zhodino), the plant “Naftan” (Novopolotsk), enterprise “Polesy- eelectromash” (Luninets). Signature collectors, among who there were rep- resentatives of the administration, sometimes had the signature sheets with completely filled blanks of personal data. If people tried to refuse, they tried to persuade, referring to the adjusted plan to collect signatures. These facts were also noted in Babruisk, Mogilev, Krichev, the company “Smolevichi Broiler Poultry Factory” and others . 35 According to observers, the head of the post office # 15 in Polotsk Mrs. Barodzicz collectd signatures for Lukashenka during working hours at her workplace. According to information given by the employee of “Belaruskali”, one of the heads of departments of the enterprise ordered all employees to bring him their passports and sign for the current president. His secretary went on the mines and collected signatures. The officers and warrant officers of the 38th Brigade, located in Brest, said that the commanders organized meetings with the initiative group of Lukashenka at the end of July. All present officers were “advised” to sign up for the Supreme Commander (who is the current president). Collecting of signatures in support of nomination of a candidate for presi- dent Alexander Lukashenko took place in branch #1 of Gomel city clinic on August 4. According to doctors, clinic employees were ordered to come to the hall with their passports from 12.00 to 14.00 on August 4. In the hall of the there was a woman, she introduced as the member of the initiative group on nominating a candidate for president Alexander Lukashenko and collected sig- natures. On condition of anonymity, Gomel residents reported that the signa- tures were also collected for Lukashenko in Gomel regional clinical hospital, The collection of signatures conducted a member of the Board, CEO of PMC “Grodnooblkinovideoprokat” Yuri Aliaxei at lunchtime.

36 4. THE NOMINATION AND REGISTRATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES and all the doctors were ordered to sign up “not to have problems further.” In the office of the director of school # 27 in Gomel signatures were collected from the technical staff during working hours also in support of the current presi- dent. Residents of Gomel also informed that the signatures for Lukashenko were gathered at JSC “Gomel Carriage Works” and JSC “Gomel Plant of con- crete products.” The campaign “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections” received information that the administration of the company “Gomelkabel” collected signatures for Alexander Lukashenko in the working time on July 28. The employees were threatened to be fired, if they did not sign, (the company has a contract system). As a result, a large number of employees “Gomelkabel” took statements from their passports to go to the checkpoint to sign. The complaint to CEC from the initiative group of A. Lyabedzka on the facts of forced collection of signatures in favor of A. Lukashenko at the Gomel enterprise “Comintern” and “Gomselmash” was rejected, and the ap- plication consideration on a collegial meeting of CEC did not take place. In Zhodino observers recorded the case when collectors of signatures for Lukashenka allowed voters to sign on behalf of other voters. In Minsk there were cases when collectors of signatures for nominating of Alexander Lukashenko offered voters to sign in the sheets that did not con- Collection of signatures in the Belarusian Republican Youth Union in town (Gomel district)

37 tain the data about the person who collected signatures and full data of the person nominated as a presidential candidate. Employees of JSC “Amkodor” reported that the deputy director on ideology of the holding company called employees of structural divisions of the organization and gave them an empty signature sheets to collect signatures in support of Alexander Lukashenko. In Brest, the member of the initiative group of Lukashenka V. Astapuk was absent at the picket at 1.00 pm on August 5. A person who is not au- thorized to collect signatures did it instead, “assistant to a member of the initiative group of A. Lukashenka “ M. Marozava, who in the presence of an observer received a signature from Karotsich Lyudmila Mikalaieuna. The ob- server noted that the members of the initiative group used the book “Memo of assistant member of the initiative group” issued by mass circulation with- out imprint According to the member of the initiative group of Lukashenka Anna Pishchik, this book she got from the head of the ideology department of Moscow district of Brest city. In Minsk, there have been documented several cases where pickets for collection of signatures for Lukashenka took place in prohibited picketing places (e.g. in subways), but the members of other initiative groups were for- bidden to collect signatures in these places. According to one of the members of the initiative group T. Karatkevich, while his collecting of signatures in Krichev, citizens told that the head of economics department of the city council I. Prudnikov told them that if they had already signed up for the nomination of Alexander Lukashenko, they could not sign up for other candidates. State Mass Media focused in publications on the pickets of collecting sig- natures for Lukashenka only in a positive way. As for the collection of signa- tures for other candidates, state Mass Media reported the pickets very rarely in the neutral or negative colors. For instance, the program host Alexei Mi- halchenko dedicated airtime on TV to chairman of the United Civil Party Anatoly Lebedko, severely criticizing his activities on the state television channel ONT “As it is”. Publications on the official website of the Minsk city council covered the collection of signatures at the picket in favor of Lukash- enka. The complaints of the initiative group of Lebedko for these cases were not satisfied by CEC. Representatives of Belarusian Popular Front appealed to the CEC with the complaint, which demanded caution to the initiative group of Lukashen- ka: at the supermarket “Central” in Minsk, where the signatures were collect- ed at the pickets of many candidates, the initiative group of Lukashenka from the members of the pro-government Communist Party of Belarus distributed publications in favor of their nominee (though at the stage of collecting sig- 38 4. THE NOMINATION AND REGISTRATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

The program “As it is”, 07.25.2015 natures of voters it is banned the distribution of any printed material). How- ever, despite the members of the initiative group of Lukashenka personally confirmed the violation, CEC rejected the complaint. On the eve of registration of presidential candidates BPF Party appealed to CEC with a complaint about violations of the law by the initiative group of Aliaksandr Lukashenka. BPF Party listed in the complaint, consisting of 50 sheets, definite cases, when Alexander Lukashenko’s supporters used their official position and other forms of administrative resources in favor of the nomination of the candidate. The cases are as follows: compelling to give sig- natures, collecting signatures during working hours with the participation of administrations of state and private enterprises, pickets for collection of signatures in places prohibited by the decisions of local authorities. There were also presented specific cases of collecting signatures for Lukashenko by people who were not members of the initiative group, the improper filling out in signature sheets, editing and distributing of printed campaign materials among voters, use of financial funds for campaign that violate the Electoral Code. The complaint was accompanied by numerous documentary evidences, statements and complaints of members of initiative groups and voters, pho- tos, reports of Mass Media and observers. As stated in the complaint, the 39 violations of Alyaksandr Lukashenka initiative group were constantly and widely used throughout the country. All these violations created reasons for refusal of registration of Lukashenka as a presidential candidate. Moreover, the complaint gave the facts of pressure on the initiative groups of other can- didates from the side of local authorities, which are ubder constant control of the present President. The complaint also contained a list of cases when sig- nature collectors were arrested, apartments of members of initiative groups were searched, definite obstacles took place while the collection of signatures and other measures to creat unequal conditions for the collection of signa- tures. This complaint was considered at the meeting of the Central Election Commission and was rejected. Registration of candidates. As a result, five initiative groups submitted the necessary number of signatures to the election commissions. Initiative Group of Anatol Lyabedzka and Syarhei Kalyakin said that they were un- able to collect the necessary number signatures to be registered. The initia- tive group Syarhei Kalyakin said that they collected 64 thousand signatures. When checking of the signatures by TEC the significant number of sig- natures in support of the nomination of non-party candidate Viktor Teresh- chenko was invalid. On September 10, CEC made a dicision according to which four politi- cians were registered as the presidential candidates: the chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party Sergei Gaydukevich, a member of the Social Democratic Party (Hramada) and a representative of the campaign “Tell the Truth!” Tatiana Karatkevich, non-party incumbent Alexander Lukashenko, the chairman of the Patriotic Party Mikalai Ulakhovich. It is worth noting that the process of verification of signatures in support of the nomination of candidates was not transperant: observer did not have access to it. As a result of it other politicians doubted about the accuracy of 40 4. THE NOMINATION AND REGISTRATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES the collected signatures because of the lack of opposition representatives in TECs ( they carried out the verification of signatures). The doubt was about all four registered candidates.

Table 4. The number of the initiative groups and the number of collected signatures

Number The name of a person, Submitted signa- Number of valid ofpeople in № who was nominated as tures (according signatures (ac- the initiative a candidate to CEC) cording to CEC) group 1 Aliaksandr Lukashenka 10 577 1 761 145 1 753 380

2 Sarhei Haidukevich 2 481 140 735 139 877

3 Tatsiana Karatkevich 1 993 107 299 105 278

4 Siarhei Kaliakin 1 510 48 -

5 Mikalai Ulahovich 1 426 159 805 149 819

6 Anatol Lyabedzka 977 - -

7 Viktar Tsiareshchanka 946 130 404 6 699 8 Zhana Ramanouskaja 110 780 -

41 5. CAMPAIGNING

Legal regulation. According to article 45 of the Electoral Code, citizens of the Republic of Belarus, political parties and other CSOs, labor collec- tives, authorized representatives of presidential candidates, initiative groups, which conduct the election campaign for the presidential candidates, have the right to do free and full discussion of election programs of the presiden- tial candidates of the Republic of Belarus, as well as discuss their political, business and personal qualities, to arrange campaigns for or against a candi- date at meetings, Mass Media and during meetings with voters. Foreign citi- zens are not eligible to participate in the campaign. In accordance with the approved calendar plan by CEC, the pre-election campaign start on the day following the registration of candidates, i.e. from September 10 until October 10. Article 47 of the Electoral Code establishes restrictions on campaigning. Campaigning is forbidden, when there is the propaganda of war, calls for forc- ible change of the constitutional order, violation of territorial integrity of the Republic of Belarus, insults and slander against officials of the Republic of Belarus, candidates for President of the Republic of Belarus, as well as calls that encourage the disruption, cancellation or postponement of the elections. It is also prohibited to conduct the agitation or propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy, production and dissemination of reports and materials, which contain social, racial, national or religious hos- tility. During the pre-election campaign it is prohibited distribution of cash, gifts and other material things, arranging sales of goods/ services or their free provision; except for printed campaign materials, specially made to meet the requirements of the Electoral Code for the election campaign. During the pre-election campaign it is prohibited to influence citizens by promising them money and other material things. Financing of election campaigning. The election campaign-2015 had in- novation: for the first time in the history of presidential election candidates did not receive public funding for campaigning (this innovation was provid- ed by the changes that were made to the Electoral Code in 2013). New fund- ing arrangements of agitation caused a small number of printed propaganda materials that were distributed by presidential candidates. According to article 45 of the Election Code, candidates have the right to produce printed campaign materials only from the funds in their elec- toral funds. The election fund of Alexander Lukashenko was 1 580 856 000 rubles (spent 1,541,934,526 rubles), Sergei Haidukevich – 42,790,000 rubles 42 5. CAMPAIGNING

(spent 42,339,999 rubles), Mikalai Ulakhovich – 33,318,000 rubles (33.318 million rubles were spent) Tatiana Karatkevich – 25 525 911 rubles (spent 24,993,242 rubles). At the same time CEC did not publish the information about the sources of the donations. Observers of «Right to Choose 2015» fixed he distribution of printed ma- terials by all registered presidential candidates. CEC issued common leaflets with information about the candidates, which were distributed throughout the country in mailboxes. However, the greatest number of printed materials related to the elections, concerning information of the election date (Octo- ber 11). Observers recorded propaganda posters and postcards of candidate Alexander Lukashenko, which did not have the output data; it is a violation of the law. During the election campaign there were numerous violations of the leg- islation on campaign finance in favor of Alexander Lukashenko: state mon- ey was used everywhere, private funds and funds of organizations were at- tracted without including them into candidate’s election fund. CEC refused to announce the list of organizations and private donors that transferred the funds to the electoral fund of the incumbent President. During the election campaign there were violations of the electoral law: the illegal use of means of agitation and unequal conditions for campaign- ing of all candidates. These violations took place in favor of the candidate Alexander Lukashenko, they created unfair advantage for him in the election campaign, including the use of state Mass Media. It violates the rights of oth- er candidates on equal legal conditions for election activities. In 2013, a new norm appeared into the law: the rejection of state financ- ing of an election campaign of candidates and introducing of campaign fund- ing only through election funds of candidates. It resulted in a small number of printed campaign materials (leaflets and posters) and the absolute absence of paid political advertising. Thus, this fact brought to a small representation of the theme of elections in the public. Under these conditions there was an abuse of the candidate Alexander Lukashenko and disbalance, how the state media covered the campaign. It created unequal conditions for candidates and gave preference to the incumbent President. The shopping mall “ZUM Minsk” was selling T-shirts produced by JSC “Svitanak” (Zhodino) with images that contain a slogan of the candidate Lu- kashenko “For the future of independent Belarus!” and graphic symbol (logo) in the form of a check, the letter “V”. Manufacturer of these T-shirts is a state enterprise, which belongs to the Belarusian State Concern for production and implementation of light industrial products. These products are designed to encourage citizens to vote for the candidate Lukashenko, but it is made 43 not at the expense of the election fund of the candidate. Thus, the campaign for this candidate was not financed from the election fund of the candidate. For example, the production of above mentioned T-shirts, the publications in the state media and a number of concerts by cooperation with the state TV channel ONT and the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Belarus. and All these events were financed from the state budget of the Republic of Belarus, which is unacceptable and contrary to the requirements of article 45 of the Electoral Code. On September 25, the site of the Ministry of Defense published the “Mes- sage from the delegates of the 5th meeting of the Officers of the Armed Forces, militaries in reserve, retired members and their families.” In this doc- ument, the meeting participants addressed the military to support the can- didate Lukashenka as the Commander of the Armed Forces in the upcoming presidential elections. This action has the characteristics of propaganda ruled by Part 1 of article 155 of the Electoral Code of Belarus. According to the regulations on meetings of officers, expenses for their business trips are al- located from the budget of the Ministry of Defence. According part 2 article 73 of the Electoral Code, the presidential candidate had no right to take an advantage of their official position in favor of his/her election. “To take an 44 5. CAMPAIGNING

advantage of their official position” means the involvement of subordinated persons who do activities that contribute to the election in working time, as well as election campaigning during business trips. Thus, during this meeting and distributing its appeal the requirements of electoral law were violated: Alexander Lukashenko used his official position for the purpose of the elec- tion. The military are under his authority (Lukashenka is a commander-in- chief). They took part in activities that contributed to the election during working hours. Their campaign activities were carried out and paid during business trips. Therefore, the candidate Tatyana Karatkevich submitted two complaints to CEC. The complaints were based on he facts metioned above: the viola- tions of the law on the financing of the election campaign by the candidate Alexander Lukashenko and his use of administrative resources. However, having considered these complaints at its meeting on October 2, CEC found no grounds for warning to the candidate Lukashenko or cancellation of his registration. The freedom of campaign meetings was essentially limited both in law and in practice during the election campaign. It did not allow voters and political forces to hold meetings, siply just to discuss the elections. 45 Despite the simplified procedure for holding mass events by candidates and their initiative groups, the authorities forbade to arrange events of other political forces. There was even the administrative liability of their representatives. According to article 451 of the Electoral Code, campaign mass actions of the presidential candidates and their proxies (outdoor assembly, rallies, picketing) are arranged according to the simplified procedure on the ap- plication principle. It is enough just to submit an application to the local authority two days before the event in the allowed place. However, other actors are more limited while conducting the campaign events: they con- duct mass actions in accordance with the general permitting procedure es- tablished by the law “On mass events in Belarus”, which requires to submit the application 15 days before the event and enables local authorities to prohibit the implementation of any event. This dual regulation of campaign events hinders the equal participation of candidates and other actors in the campaign. It clearly manifested during the campaign-2015. Local authorities in the towns of Belarus identified places permitted for campaign events. There was no single approach to determine them. A posi- tive example was in Minsk: Minsk city council permitted the holding of cam- paign events in any suitable places, except the list of squares and buldings where such activities were not allowed. However, the local authorities of other cities acted in the opposite way, and identified a list of specific places for campaign events. In some cities, this list was wide enough and allowed to carry out activities in comfortable conditions (for example, in Brest). The authorities of some cities, on the contrary, allowed less-visited and uninhab- ited places for campaigning (e.g. playgrounds) located in distant parts of the city. In particular, uncomfortable places for campaign events were identified in Gomel, Vitebsk, Mogilev, Grodno, Svetlogorsk, Buda-Koshelev, , Drohiczyn, Kobrin and other cities. For example, in Chygunachny district in Vitebsk the park of railroad workers was an allowed place, which is far away from the busy pedestrian routes and transport links, away from residential areas. The trustees of Tatiana Karatkevich asked Rechitsa city council (Re- chitsa, Gomel region) to increase the number of allowed places for campaign events but they were denied. Local authorities in Grodno region also refused to increase the number of places for campaign events. On September 16, the organizers of the picket “Criminal disappearances of political opponents of power” were brought to administrative liability in Minsk. On September 23, the Chairman of the United Civil Party Anatoly Lebedko, UCP member Mikalai Kozlov, politicians Mikola Statkevich and Uladzimir Nyaklyaeu were punished with fines for the picket. On October 4, 46 5. CAMPAIGNING in Minsk, the meeting “Against locating of Russian military bases in Belarus” took place. The organizers and participants of the meeting were the Chair- man of the United Civil Party Anatoly Lebedko, social activist Alexei Ma- rochkin, chairman of the BPF party Alyaksei Yanukevich, deputy chairman of the Movement “For Freedom” Yuri Hubarevich, politicians Uladzimir Nyaklyaeu, Vyacheslav Siuchyk, Mikola Statkevich and others. They got administrative reports for violation of the order of organizing and holding mass events. At the end of the campaign all these politicians were punished by administrative fines. Dozens of public events declared by the opposition were banned by the authorities. In September, a member of the BPF Ivan Sheha submitted re- quests for three pickets to Slonim city council (3d, 4th and 5th of October). The pickets were supposed to support Belarusian national action “For a peaceful and neutral Belarus!” All three picket were not allowed by Slonim city council without explaining its refusal. On October 9, Miadziel city coun- cil (Miadziel, Minsk region) banned BCD activists to hold a picket “against all candidates”. However, on October 8, Miadziel city council allowed the picket “Inform the public about the situation in health care”. In Gomel the pickets of Left Party “Fair World” against the candidate Alexander Lukash- enko were banned. In Vitebsk, the authorities did not give permission for any of 21 declared picket by CCP BPF. The reason for refusal – usual for Vitebsk: the organizers of the events did not attach contracts with the police, commu- nity and medical services to their applications maintenance for them to serve the events. All public events of Vitebsk opposition are prohibited on these grounds every year. On October 1, in Minsk near the Botanical Gardens, the police detained the activist Alexander Osipov and the press secretary of the CSO “Move- ment” For Freedom” Volga Bykovskaja with a billboard of campaign “Peo- ple’s referendum”. On October 2, UCP activist Sergei Kosobudsky was detained near the department store “Gomel” in Gomel. He handed out the invitations to propaganda meeting to the citizens. On September 27, the police detained 30 participants of the pickets in support of Tatiana Karatkevich and “Against Russian military base in the town of Baranovichi.” The election campaign in Mass Media. All candidates made use of the opportunity, provided by the electoral law, to publish their election program in state newspapers. However, while publishing the relevant texts on the state newspapers’ websites, the principle of equality was violated: for exam- ple, on the website of the newspaper “Sovetskaya Belorussia” programs of all alternative candidates were printed in the column “Pulse of the elections,” 47 while the program of Alexander Lukashenko was set in the column “Presi- dent”. When publishing Tatiana Karatkevich program online state news agency BELTA, the program of the opposition candidate was under censor- ship: the call to donate money to the election fund of the candidate was de- leted from the text. At CEC website, at the beginning there was a link to the website of the public reception of the candidate Alexander Lukashenko in the column about registered candidates. As for other candidates, there was only a list of trustees. Only after the definite appeal of Tatiana Karatkevich’s headquar- ters, the candidate’s column added a link to a website with the program of the candidate. State bodies and organizations, as well as CSOs, financed from the state budget (including the Belarusian Republican Youth Union) widely used administrative resources in favor of the candidate Alexander Lukashenko, giving him the most favored conditions and, at the same time, violating the principle of equality of al the rest candidates. State media also covered the election campaign in disbalance, preferring the activity of the incumbent president to the activities of other candidates and political parties. The candidates Gaydukevich, Karatkevich and Ulakhovich used their right to have their speeches on the state TV and radio. The candidate Lu- kashenko did not take advantage of this opportunity. Becides, the current President ignored the debates that took place in the air: he neither came to the debates nor sent somebody of his headquarters. Thus, the participants lacked the possibility to ask questions to the current President, and voters could not compare all the candidates in their discussions. In accordance with Article 46 of the Electoral Code, journalists and of- ficials of mass media are prohibited do TV and radio programs and to par- ticipate in the election coverage in the media, if these persons are authorized representatives of presidential candidates. In violation of these requirements, Gennady Davydko a trustee of the candidate Alyaksandr Lukashenka, par- ticipated as a TV host in “The club of editors”, being a chairman of BTRC. Moreover, this program covered the topic of elections. However, CEC, when considering the complaints, just fixed the fact of violation and did not apply any sanctions against the candidate and his cinfidant. Independent CSOs “Belarusian Association of Journalists” carried out the monitoring of the media during the election campaign (from September 1 to September 20). According to it, the way of coverage of the election campaign by the state media remained unchanged, though there was the increase of the electoral themes and positive or neutral presentation of the rival-candidates of the incumbent president. The media continued to focus on the promotion 48 5. CAMPAIGNING of only one candidate for the top position – the incumbent one. For example, the main news program of the state TV “Panorama” gave the candidate Gaid- ukevich 4% of the whole election airtime, Ulakhovich – 3.6%, Karatkevich – 3.4%, Lukashenko – 61%. The percentage of their presence did not differ in other state media. State media evaluated the activities of the president posi- tively or neutrally. The most positive image of the president is shown in TV series “XXI century”, a weekly program “The main broadcast.” The state media informed voters about the meetings with the candidates and electoral propaganda meeting very sparingly and unilaterally. For exam- ple, the website of Vaukavysk city council published several announcements about the meeting with voters of a trustee of Alexander Lukashenko, and no announcement about the meeting with the candidate Tatyana Karatkevich. While reporting about the campaign, the state media used the logo of the campaign of Alexander Lukashenko in the form of a check «V», painted in colors of the national flag. This graphic sign was on the posters, which were used by the initiative group of Alyaksandr Lukashenka at the time of the col- lection of signatures. The same image was located on his campaign boards and posters. The same symbol is on the logo and banner of the column “Elec- tions-2015” at the website of the state news agency BelTA, as well as on sites of a number of state regional newspapers (“Voronovskaya newspaper”, “Voice of Vetkauschyny”, “The Banner of the Soviets”, “Paleskaja prauda”, “Khoini- ki News “ and others.). In addition, the same graphic symbol was used by the state television channel ONT in a series of concerts “We are together”, which took place in the regional centers of Belarus since early September. For ex- ample, on September 19, the concert “We Are Together” with the symbolism of Lukashenko took place in Gomel. On September 5, similar events of pro- motional origin took place in Brest and on September 12 – in Grodno.

49 6. EARLY VOTING Legal regulation. According to article 53 of the Electoral Code, a voter, who is unable to be at the place of his/her residence on the election day, has the right to fill a ballot and lower it sealed in a special ballot box for early voting in the room of PEC. It should be done in conditions excluding control over his/her will five days before the elections. Official confirmation of the reasons for the impossibility of the voters come to the polling station on the Election Day is not required. Early voting is carried out from 10am to 14pm and from 16pm to 19pm in the presence of, at least, two members of the PEC. On the first day of early voting ballot boxes are sealed, and at the end of the time of the early voting, the chairman or the vice-chairman of PEC seal up the slot in the ballot box by a sheet of paper. The chairman or vice-chairman and a member of PEC put their signatures on this sheet. The chairman or vice-chairman of PEC open the slot in the ballot box every day before the start of early voting by. The chairman of PEC provides the storage of a ballot box. But neither legislation nor manuals CEC for PEC regulate the details of the measures to be applied to keep a ballot box safe and to prevent unauthorized access dur- ing the early voting at the time when the vote does not take place. During the early voting a chairman or vice-chairman of PEC compose the protocol every day. It specifies the number of ballots received by PEC, the number of citizens who received ballots (the last day of early voting – the total number of citizens who received ballots), the number of spoiled and un- used ballots. The protocol is signed by the chairman or vice-chairman and a member of PEC. A copy of the protocol is demonstrated for public inspection in the hall of PEC. When a voter receives a ballot he/she signs the list of citizens having the right to participate in elections, and puts down the date of early voting. In accordance with the calendar plan of arrangements for the preparation and holding of elections of President of the Republic of Belarus (approved by decision № 17 of CEC on July 1st, 2015), early voting was being held for five days, from October 6, 2015 to October 10, 2015. Violations during the early voting. Early voting (five days) is a period of the most favorable conditions for falsification of the elections. At these elections, the authorities didn’t give up their old practice of mass (including forced) early voting. The ballot boxes were stored improperly. Unauthorized persons had uncontrolled access to them. All these facts undermine the cred- ibility of the election results, especially without the opposition representa- tives in election commissions. 50 6. EARLY VOTING

During e arly voting the use of administrative resource in favor of the in- cumbent President continued, including the placement of campaign materi- als at the polling stations. Election Commission and other state bodies created obstacles for the observers: they didn’t give them information about the number of voters in the area according to the list; they illegally refused to accredit the observers, they deprived the observers of accreditation removed them from the areas; they conducted pressure on observers in workplaces for them to refuse par- ticipating in the monitoring; they created uncomfortable conditions for plac- ing of observers in the polling station, so the observers could not monitor the hanging out of ballots. During the observation of early voting observers of the campaign “Right to Choice” recorded 1154 cases of electoral law violation. There is evidence of involvement of PECs in a direct falsification during the early voting: the vote of persons who did not have the right to vote, criminal manipulation of voter lists. The greatest number of violations dealt with the improper storage of ballot boxes. The room with the box was not sealed and unauthorized per- sons had access to the box during the breaks in early voting. 700 incidents of such a kind were recorded. Becides, the most common violations took place, Lidzia Jarmoshyna, Chairman of the Central Commission for Elections and Republican Referenda of Belarus

51 when observers were not allowed to observe the actual hanging out of bal- lots, because of inconvenient location of observers’ seats and other obsta- cles (more than 30 cases of such a kind). There were a lot of cases, when voters were forced to early voting. The administration of enterprises and educational institutions had access to the list of persons who took or did not take part in early voting, so they strongly controlled the will of citi- zens. One of the most serious violations recorded by observers of “Right to choose”, was a vote of persons, who were not included in the lists of voters in these areas. They were specially organized groups of voters who did not live on the territory of the polling station. Manipulation of the attendance for early voting. Early voting atten- dance was unprecedented high in the elections-2015. This is a absolute re- cord for the presidential elections in Belarus. According to CEC, 36.05% of the voters took part in five-days early voting. This is an absolute re- cord number in the history of elections. Taking into account the fact that a great number of opposition parties and CSOs, as well as some individual opposition politicians called for ignoring of elections and not participat- ing in voting, such a record attendence figures are doubtful. The figures of attendance sounded by election commissions did not comply with that figures recorded by observers in most polling stations where the observation took place. There is evidence, when PECs were involved in direct falcificating during early voting: persons, who did not have the right to vote, voted; criminal manipulations of voter lists were made. So, the official true data of attendance at the polling stations, where the observation was carried out, were a quarter lower than the officially announced attendance all over the country. In areas where there were observers of the campaign “Right to Choice”, the official attendance was evidently lower (by nearly a quarter) than the total official attendence in the country. It indicates that at the polling sta- tions where there were no independent observers, illegal manipulation to increase the attendance was probably much larger than that recorded at the polling stations where the observation was done. CEC, on the contrary to previous elections, did not publish data about the number of early voters at the national level and in regions: the number of voters who voted was not said, there was only the percentage of atten- dance in the whole country, in region and at polling stations abroad. It is not possible to verify the authenticity of the data released by the Central Commission and to compare them with the voter attendance at definite polling stations for each of the five days of early voting. 52 6. EARLY VOTING

The difference between the data of observers and commissions at 556 polling stations in the quantity of voters, who voted, was 9586 people or 1% of the total voters at 556 polling stations. The figure makes sense about poll- ing station, where the observers got the data about total number of voters in the lists and had the opportunity to conduct continuous monitoring over 4 days. The company “Right to choice” did not identify the data differences in attendance between PEC and observers at 241 polling stations, the differ- ence of less than 5% was recorded at 291 polling stations, a difference of more than 5% – at 25 ones. The significant attendance difference between the data from PEC and observers from “right to choose” was fixed, for example, at polling station #2 of Central district of Minsk. Observers counted 32 people on the first day of early voting and the commission gave 62 people. Further, the discrep- ancy was increasing exponentially: on October 7, observers counted 32 vot- ers, and the protocol – 94 voters. When the observer from the CSO “Move- ment” For Freedom” Alexander Marchenko told PEC was going to appeal the prosecutor and to TEC on this violation, he was threatened by the chair- man of PEC. At polling station #43 in Soviet district of Minsk there was the difference of 64 voters between the commission data (311) and observer data (247). At the polling station #67 of Moscow district of Brest, on October 6, the number of voters who voted on the first day of early voting was 83 people. According to the protocol of the commission, the number of voters was 183 voters. The difference was 100 people. The observers sent complaints to PEC, TEC and the prosecutor’s office. In response to these complaints PEC 53 and TEC (prosecutors also forwarded the complaint to the TEC) reported that the elections are conducted in accordance with the Electoral Code. A tough response of the observers to this violation caused the situation, when the observer Tikhanava A.A. was deprived of her accreditation on October8. Manipulations of voter lists at early voting. Voter lists were changed in almost all polling stations, where the company “right to choose” observed. In most cases, voter lists were reduced: at 570 polling stations, where PECs showed the number of voters to observers, voters lists decreased by 3320 people. On the first day of early voting, on October 6, there were 1 019 897 voters on the lists, and on the fourth day of early voting, on October 9, there were 1,016,577 voters. However, the official data of CEC concerning the number of voters on the voting lists in all provinces was unchanged (in- crease was noticed only in the lists in overseas areas). It does clearly unreli- able the results of the attendance called by CEC all over the republic. The most significant reduction in voter lists were recorded at polling sta- tion # 28 in Railway district of Gomel: from October 6 to October 9, the num- ber of voters decreased from 2004 to 1385 people (i.e. 619 voters). It should be noted that this reduction of the voters lists creates conditions for illegal ma- nipulation of the ballots, because PEC got them basing on the original number of voters on voters lists at the poling station. It is worth noticing that, more than 100 poling srtations did not give any data about the number of voters on the lists. Thus, the reducing of the number of voters may be more significant. However, PECs included, on purpose, people, who were not residents in the territory of the of the polling station, into the voters lists. Therefore, such cases were registered in Minsk by observers from the campaign “Tell the truth!” The citizens, who rented an apartment on the territory of a polling station, gave PEC a rent agreement and they were included into the voters’ lists. However, they did not have neither permanent nor temporary registration in the terri- tory of a polling station. These violations were appealed by numorous observ- ers, but the complaint was not satisfied. Falcifications during early voting. One of the most criminal methods of election fraud is a massive vote of the same groups of voters in different areas. It would not happen, if the members of PEC did not assist in it. The observerof CSO “Movement” For Freedom” Ales Taustyka noticed, in particular, such mobile organized group at the polling stations of Leninski district at Minsk. According to him, at one point a group of women, wearing office suits, ap- peared at the poling station and waited for their colleagues to vote. However, unlike usual voters, they did not tell PEC their addresses, and nobody asked them. Mr. Taustyka found the bus that brought the group here: it was in Ple- 54 6. EARLY VOTING khanov street. According to him, the falcifications continued in the afternoon, when 11 people voted in the same way. The similar case was reported by an observer at the polling station # 18 of Central district of Minsk, where a group of 11-12 people came at the polling station and voted, without naming their addresses. The observer from the United Civil Party, Nikolai Kozlov gave the same example happening at the polling station # 24 in Central region. The member of Minsk city election commission from BPF party Zmitser Kaspiarovich exposed the manipulation of the voters’ ballots. He decided to visit PECs, where there were not observers of the campaign “Right to choice”, and compared the number of ballots, which PECs gave to voters, and the real number of signatures of voters who received ballots and personally signed for it in the list of voters. On October 8, in the morning, PEC of polling station #25 of Soviet district of Minsk gave out 146 ballots, but only 109 people signed in the voters’ lists upon the receipt of ballots. At polling station # 26 of the same district of Minsk 351 ballots were given out, but 162 voters signed for them. On October 9, in the morning, at the polling station # 49 of Soviet district of Minsk there were given out 308 ballots for 3 days of early voting but there were only 170 voters’ signatures. Dzmitry Kaspiarovich noted that this trend takes place at every polling station without independent monitoring. Due to

55 this incident, the representative of “Right to Choose 2015” sent a memoran- dum to the chairman of the city election commission and prepared a complaint to the prosecutor’s office. Force to participate in early voting. During early voting numerous cas- es of force to participate were recorded, as well as the use of administrative resources in order to induce dependent-on-government people (students and employees of state-owned enterprises), to involuntary voting beyond the elec- tion day. The administrations of Belarusian State University, Belarusian State Eco- nomic University, Belarusian State Technological University, Belarusian State Technical University, Baranovichi State university, Minsk State Energy Col- lege, Minsk architectural college, Belarusian Institute of entrepreneurial activ- ity, Gomel Polytechnic College , Academy of Management of the President, the Belarusian State University of computer science and radio, the Belarusian University of Culture and Arts and other institutionsin participated in the or- ganization of forced early voting. The facts in all these higher educational es- tablishments were noticed and fixed by observers. The university administra- tion encouraged students from other cities to take part in early voting. Instead, classes on Saturday would be canceled, students would leave the capital. The majority of students, being afraid of pressure from the side of the university administration, refused to confirm the facts of pressure and force in a written form. But they tell about it anonymously. Under these conditions, the only source of information about the compulsion to early voting are messages on the Internet, especially in social networks and in interviews to different Mass media. Election Commissions did their best to encourage voters to participate in early voting, including different means of misinformation. For example, PEC in Vitebsk region edited booklets for voters. They were printed by order # 5819 with the edition of 895,500 copies in the GDP “Vitsabldruk”. The book- lets called voters to come to the early voting if they “are not be able to be at the polling station on the election day.” Meanwhile, the Electoral Code, Article 53 allows early voting only for those voters, who “do not have the possibility to be at the place of residence on election day”. Article 54 says that those voters, who “will not be able to come to the polling station on the day of elections” must vote at the place of their location.

56 7. VOTING ON ELECTION DAY AND COUNT OF VOTES Violations during voting. On election day, 11 October, during the voting at the polling stations and on the location of the voters were recorded mas- sive and systematic violations of the law while vote counting. The violations took place in the majority of polling stations. The following violations were observed the most often: careless compilation of voters’ lists, manipulation of attendence on election day (11 October), the massive voting on the location of voters without their statements about the organization of the vote on their place of residence, non-transparent and non-collegiate vote count. On election day, observers recorded 419 incidents of violations of the electoral law, violations of the rights of observers and illegal manipulations. This figure does not include violations at the end of voting and vote-count- ing stage. On the main voting day the observers of “Right to choice” mainly recorded the following incidents: deprivation of observers’ accreditation, non-access of observers to observe the counting of votes, as well as failure to provide information about the voters’ lists, about the number of voters who voted and others. On election day, observers of “Right to choice” filed 509 complaints: Brest region – 85 complaints; Vitebsk region – 70 complaints; Gomel region – 51 complaints; Minsk City – 93 complaints; Hrodna region – 61 complaints; Minsk region – 53 complaints; Mahiliou region – 96 complaints. The portraits and posters of Alexander Lukashenko were placed at several polling stations both during early voting and on election day, October 11. The manipulation of voters’ lists on the day of the primary vote. On election day, observers at 584 polling stations had access to information about the number of voters included in the vothers’ lists at the beginning of the day. While camparing these data with that of final protocols, it should be mentioned that the lists were decreased on election day. At the time of opening of polling stations there were 1042008 voters totally at 584 polling stations. In the final report of these polling stations the total number of vot- ers was 1015137 voters. The difference was 26871 people less, which means 2.57% decrease of voters’ lists on one day of primary vote. Only 173 polling stations (out of these 584) did not change the voters’ lists during October

57 11. 171 polling stations (out of these 584) changed the lists by increasing the number of voters on the lists. 240 polling stations (out of these 584) changed the lists by decreasing the number of voters on the lists. 81 polling stations decreased the number of voters on the lists significantly (100 or more peo- ple). Illegal manipulation of the vote on the location of the voters. Observ- ers were able to get information about the number of people who voted at the place of residence at 491 stations. Some polling stations had a huge number of such voters. So, at one polling station the figure was 40.6% of all the vot- ers; at 4 polling stations – more than 30% but less than 40%, at 18 polling stations – more than 20% but less than 30%. Almost everywhere there were cases when the voting lists for the vote on the location of the voters included the voters, who did not express their desire to vote on the place of their resi- dence, as required by law. The observers recorded that more than 100 people expressed their de- sire to vote at the location at 106 polling stations. This figure was given by PEC. Some polling stations had a huge number of voters wishing to vote at the location. It clearly indicated the fact of the mass organization of voting outside the polling station. The greatest number of those wishing to vote at the location was fixed at the following polling stations: Vitebsk, Oktyabrsky District, polling station # 5 – 577 people; Orsha, polling station # 16 – 503 58 7. VOTING ON ELECTION DAY AND COUNT OF VOTES

people; Polotsk, polling station # 10 – 491 people; Vitebsk region, village Ezerische, polling station # 8 – 481 people; Mogilev, Leninsky district, poll- ing station # 41 – 400 people. The fact that so many people are not able to vote on the place of resi- dence in such a short time, clearly shows an example of such a vote, which was recorded at the polling station # 8 in Orsha. At this polling station in the morning PEC declared that about 350 people expressed a desire to vote at place of residence (the head of PEC refused to provide the exact figure of such voters). At 10 am 2 groups consisting of 2 members of PEC went out. One group took 50 people to go around, the second – 300 people. A group, which intended to visit around 300 people, categorically refused to take ob- servers with them. They said there were no empty seats in the car. The group returned at 15.50 pm. Thus, they visited 300 people in 4 hours 50 minutes. The commission spent 1 minute 10 seconds for one person. At the same poll- ing station observers fixed the situation, when a person, who died in Septem- ber, was included into the list to vote on the location of the residence. PECs of Garadok, Vitebsk region, created a list of those wishing to vote in the place of residence on September 23. The list included a tremendous number of voters: starting from 87 people at Bagramyanavski polling station #1 to 360 voters at Gagarin polling station # 5. Garadok region commission recognized that PEC members formed voting lists on the location, which is 59 Voters were lured at polling stations by buffets and cheap alcohol, which was sold even at schools costing less than 1 euro. It’s worth knowing that drinking of alcoholic drinks is prohibited in public places in Belarus. prohibited by the electoral law. Chairman of the Vitebsk Regional Commis- sion dismissed the complaint on this violition. Territorial commission did not consider the complaint against actions of PEC collectively. On election day PEC of Zarechensky polling station # 4 of town of Garadok gave out 149 bal- lots for voting at the location (first, 123 – for the first ballot box, and then 26 – for the second one). But the chairman of this PEC mr. Kirillov said only 103 citizen voted on the location. This discrepancy happened because the voters either came to the polling station, died or did not open the doors. The same situation took place at Gagarin polling station # 5 (Gorodok, Vitebsk region): the list for voting at the location included 360 people. However, according to the protocol, 166 voters participated in the vote on the location. These facts indicate that the voting lists on the location of the voters were created arti- ficially and without any request of the voters. So, the election commissions organized artificial and mass voting on the location of the voters. In such circumstances, the truth of the results of voting at the location of the voters are doubtful. Manipulation of the attendence on the day of the primary vote. Ac- cording to the campaign “Right to choice-2015”, which organized the obser- vation at 642 polling stations, 450 polling stations on the day of the primary 60 7. VOTING ON ELECTION DAY AND COUNT OF VOTES

vote (on October11) observers counted 336,577 people, who voted; accord- ing to official data of PECs 368 878 people voted. The difference in counting the number of people who voted was 32 301 people, or 9.6%. The attendance on election day at 450 polling stations, according to observers, was 42.2%. It indicates the main illegal manipulations took place with the voters in the ear- ly voting. According to the observers, the greatest difference in attendance on election day took place at the following polling stations: № 2 in Mozyr, Gomel region (according to observers – 280 people, according to official fig- ures – 584, the difference – 304 people, or 109%) . #51 in Mikoshevichi, Brest region (according to observers – 781 people, according to official figures – 1148 people, the difference – 367 people, or 47%); #16 in Central district of Minsk (according to observers – 633 people, according to official figures – 1 223, the difference – 590 people, or 93.2%). Non-transperant vote count and illegal manipulation in the vote count- ing. Observers of «Right to choice» submitted a proposal for transparent vote count at 605 polling stations. This proposal provides that during the vote count each ballot is shown to all the members of the commission and observers, the commission counts votes on ballot papers publicly and collec- tively. But the chairpeople of the electoral commissions expressed a negative attitude to this proposal. 61 The observers of the campaign “Right to Choice” were present at the counting of votes at 633 polling stations. According to observers of “Right to Choice”, the vast majority of polling staions did not carry out open and transparent counting of votes. During the vote count PECs were not work- ing as a collegial body, as it should be in accordance with the Electoral Code: ballots were not shown to all members of PEC. Usually every individual member of the commission counted his/her own pile of ballots, and then gave tha data to chairman of the commission either in whisper or on a piece of paper. The cairperson also summarized the data behind the scenes and announced the overall result. Thus, even the members of the commission did not have the confidence that the information in the final report really cor- responded to the real will of the citizens. For example, at polling station # 16, Orsha district, according to observ- ers, commission members were given a sheet of paper during the vote count- ing. They put down figures of counting from their piles of ballots. The sec- retary of the commission summed up the data from these sheets in a written form. And then the data were announced. Thus, the observers could hear only the total number of vote counting, but could not be sure that it corre- sponded to the number of ballots counted by all members individually. The presence of such a sheet, where the commission members wrote the results of the ballots counting followed by their summing up by secretaries of the commissions, is not provided by the law. Observers were more than 2 meters 62 7. VOTING ON ELECTION DAY AND COUNT OF VOTES

away from the table, where the ballots were counted and could not fully ob- serve, the commission summed them up. Such non-transparent vote counting could be the definite evidence of falsification of the election results. So, at above-mentioned polling station # 16, Orsha district, PEC member Pozharitskii said that, when he counted his part of the ballots, 21 votes were given for the candidate Karatkevich, as well as other members of the commission said that their parts of the bal- lots contained about 20 votes for the candidate Karatkevich. However, the protocol at this polling station said that there were only 22 voters for the candidate Karatkevich. Thus, the system of non-transparent counting of votes showed an effort to hide the electoral fraud at the stage of final proto- col writing. At 141 polling stations (i.e. 22% of the polling stations where observers were present during the vote count) the counting, according to the observ- ers, took place with violation of the requirement of separate vote count: first, the ballot box of early voting, then the boxes from the voting at the location of voters, and after the box at the polling station on the election day. The Election Code demands only this order. However, according to observers’ data, a significant difference in voting for different candidates (or against all candidates) were not noticed on various types of voting. Observers were able to provide data on the number of voters at the poll- ing stations on election day, October 11, from 485 polling stations. Accord- 63 ing to their data, the total number of voters was 374 809 people. It did not coincide with the figures given by PEC in the final report: according to them, the total number of voters was 395 863. Thus, the difference between the official data and observers’ data of the attendance was 21,054 man ( the figure from the commissions was higher by 5.61%). In some cases, the facts of rewriting of protocols after their transporting from PEC to TEC took place. The number of votes for the alternative can- didate Karatkevich was decreased. For example, PEC members at the poll- ing station # 36, situated in the House of children alternative education in Baranovichi, rewrote the protocol modifying the total data in the election night: the result for Lukashenko rose, the result for Tatiana Karatkevich was decreased as much as twice (from 17% to 7%). The journalist Makar Ma- linowski said about the changes in the report. He was present at the polling station #36 in Baranovichi on election day together with two observers. So, he was able to compare the data of the protocol, hung at the polling station, and the data in the report, which was received by TEC. The numbers in new protocol were changed: the attendence at the polling station increased by 118 people, the number of votes for Karatkevich decreased by 130 (she got 7% less). The number of votes for Lukashenko rose by 269 (his result at this poling station was 88%).

64 8. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE OBSERVERS ACTIVITY

The observers of the campaign «Right to choice» faced obstacles at their work in Minsk and in all regions of Belarus. Besides, PEC illigally denied the accreditation of observers at the beginning of the observation and did not al- low the use of smartphones to take videoing and photos, aiming at recording of violations. In some cases the commission even prevented taking photos of PEC final protocols with the results on early voting. Besides, there was pres- sure on observers at their workplaces and threats of being dismissed for them to give up the observation campaign. Moreover, the observers were illigaly deprived of accreditation and removed from polling stations. Upon the whole 36 observers of the campaign «Right to choice» were de- prived of their accreditation and removed from polling stations during the vote. This figure includes 15 people – during the early voting. While the preparation for the counting of votes and during the counting of votes 21 ob- servers were removed. Thus, the total number of removed and without-the- accreditation observers was 36 people (2.79% of the total number of observ- ers of the campaign «The Right to choice»). PEC distubed the observers to take pictures and videos very often. Some- times it was the reason for the deprivation of observers’ accreditation. It was a pecularity of elections – 2015. On October 8-9 there were four facts of pressure on observers in Molo- dechno and Molodechno district. One of the four observers refused to moni- tor, the rest three went on the observation, but they did not want the publici- ty. It is known, the administrations from the institutions of education, health care, their enterprises and the City Council phoned the observers. The mem- bers of election commissions from the campaign «Right to choice» also expe- rienced this pressure. Observers from BPF and CSO BPF «Adradzhenne» faced the refusal of the simultaneous accreditation of observers at the same polling stations in Minsk. For example, PEC at the polling station # 64 of Soviet district of Minsk refused to accredit an observer from CSO BPF «Adradzhenne» Al- exander Akulich, referring to the fact that the commission had already ac- credited an observer from BPF, and one organization can not send more than one observer. Only after writing the complaint, the commission has agreed to register the observer Alexander Akulich. Some PECs required the statute or the certificate of registration as a CSO from observers to give them. This precidure is not given in the law. 65 At polling station # 40 in Chygunachny district of Gomel PEC did not want to accredit the observer Michael Rogowski, because the extract from the protocol did not have a stamp. This violation took place everywhere, and it indicates a low level of PEC members qualification. The observers began their work only after complaints of this violation. For example, on 7 October, the observer Taisiya Kabanchuk was accred- ited at the polling station №28 in Leninsky district of Bobruisk, but an hour later the chairman of PEC abolished the accreditation. This decision was taken because, as PEC says, it was wrong extract from the protocol of the regional UCP that send this observer. Among the remarks are incomplete names and the absence of stamps. The next day one more activist of «Right to choice», Genadzi Rodzichau brought the documents to be acreditated as an observer. The extract from the protocol was corrected, but without a stamp, because the organization does not have it. Despite the fact that the law allows to have an extract without a stamp if an organization does not have it, the chairman of PEC still did not register the activist. Kabanchuk and Rodzichau submitted the complaint to TEC of Leninsky district of Bo- bruisk. The chairman of the regional UCP organization Vladimir Shantsev submitted the same complaint to the Central Commission. As a result, ob- servers were accredited according to the old protocols only on October 9. 30 observers from the Left Party «Fair World» were removed from polling stations in Orsha on the basis of claims to the protocol about the nomina- tion of observers. The protocols said that observers were sent to the polling stations to observe the elections on October 11, 2015, which completely cor- responds to a sample of the Central Commission. PEC decided that these ob- servers did not have the right to observe the early voting October 6-10. Observer from BTUREI Irina Osipova was refused to be accredited at the polling station # 43 in Kolodishchi, Minsk region, on the grounds that the organizational structure of BTUREI is not registered in Minsk region. The observer was accredited only after a complaint . It should be mentioned that on the eve of the days of early voting PECs throughout Belarus did not have a common schedule that would cover the whole working day. (On the contrary TECs’ timetable, established by the Central Commission, was quite acceptable.) It caused inconveniences with the accreditation of observers on the day before the start of early voting. In Brest, the observer of “Right to choice” Tikhonova was deprived of ac- creditation for “behavior incompatible with the status of an observer” at poll- ing station # 67. On October 7 at the polling station# 10 in Pervomaisky district of Minsk he observer of CSO “Movement” For Freedom” Peter Markelov was re- 66 8. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE OBSERVERS ACTIVITY

moved. He tried to take videoing of the whole process of voting. According to him, pro-government observers, commission members filed 8 complaints on him. These complaints were based on different fantastic reasons. PEC took the observer’s camera. Peter Markelov said: “We started the second day of observation. I put the camera next to me, and did not shot anything, but the deputy chairman of the commission took away my camera and put it in the safe, and the chairman of the commission closed it there.” Similarly, PEC at the polling station # 22 of Minsk Central District banned observers to use smartphones. The observer Dubanosau was removed from polling station # 49 of Mikashevichy town in Brest region because he was taking videoing. The observer Maxim Alyamovsky accredited at polling station # 69 of Leninsky district of Mogilev, said that PEC chairman Andrei Mikhailov banned to take a photo of the protocol of voting on October 6. The bans of the same origin took place at the polling station #26 of Moscow district of Brest, № 29 of Central district of Minsk. On October 8, the observer of “Right to choice” Maria Poklonskaja was deprived of accreditation at the polling station # 65 in Pervomaisky district of Minsk, because she attemped to take a photo the ballot box, which had signs of torn printstamp. It should be noted that in all these cases, the de- cision to deprive an observer of accreditation is made by a chairman of the Commission alone, which is a violation of the law. The question whether to deprive this observer of her accreditation was considered at a meeting of PEC only after the intervention of the coordinators of the campaign “Right 67 to choice”. In this incident a presidential candidate Tatyana Karatkevich submitted the complaint to the Central Commission. On October 9, a member of the “Movement” For Freedom” and an ob- server of the campaign “Right to choice” Artem Liava was deprived of his accreditation at the polling station # 29 in Leninski district of Minsk. The decision of the Commission informs of five representations to the observer of “Right to Choice2015” from pro-government observers. According to the Commission, the observer “created an unpleasant situation at the polling sta- tion and take photos without the permission of the citizens.” However, observers from loyal-to-government organizations (Youth Union, Belaya Rus and others) had prepared-in-advance applications about the absence of violations at polling stations. The observers filled out and sub- mitted them to PEC even when there are obvious violations. In some cases, these observers demonstrated negative attitude to the observers of “Right to choice”: they wrote groundless complaints for them and frequently PECs used the complaints to deprive of accreditation the observers of “Right to choice”. On October 9, in Borisov, Tatiana Shevchenkova was dismissed from her working place, the Centre of Social Services by agreement of the sides, who was an observer “Right to choice” at polling station #41. The director of the Center called her to the office and suggested to resign immediately. Tatiana Shevchenkova said: “I realized that if I do not sign my resign paper according to the agreement of the sides, harassment will start. I absolutely do not need because I will not bare it. The authorities started finding my faults, so they could just fire me according to business inappropriateness”. On October 6, at polling station # 29 in Akciabr village, Buda-Koshelev district, as well as at polling station # 33 in Novopolotsk, the observers failed starting monitoring because the heads of their companies threatened them to cancel their labor contracts. On October 8-9, there were four facts of pressure on observers in Molo- dechno and Molodechno district. One the four observers refused to monitor, other three went on observing, but they did not want publicity. It is known, the administrations from institutions of education, health care, their enter- prises and the city council called the observers. The election commission members of “Right to choice” also experienced pressure. For example, a member of PEC of Deravyanchytski polling sta- tion # 32 (Derevyanchitsy village, Slonim district) from Slonim CSO BPF “Adradzhenne” faced a strong pressure at her work on a dairy farm: the head of the farm warned her not to take part in PEC, otherwise she would be fired for being absent. Then the head of the farm said that the director of the hold- 68 ing “Peramozhac” Nikolai Grachyshnikav ordered her to prevent Tatiana Belko to go anywhere. TEC, in the majority, did not consider observers’ complaints, aimed at punishing PECs, especially complaints after election day. TEC of Vitebsk region did not consider complaints on the illegal removal of observers from polling station #5 in Garadok of Vitebsk region after the election campaign. At most polling stations, observers were not able to observe the count- ing of votes freely. Election commissions and other state government bodies created obstacles for the observers: they gave no information about the num- ber of voters on voters’ lists, illegally refused to accredit observers, deprived observers of their accreditation, removed observers from polling stations, conducted pressure on observers at their workplaces in order to force them to give up participating in the monitoring and created uncomfortable condi- tions for the placing of observers at polling station and their effective work to monitor how commissions gave out ballots. PECs hindered observers to take pictures or videos very often that sometimes was the basis to deprive observ- ers of their accreditation. It was a characteristic feature of elections-2015. Totally 36 observers of the campaign “Right to Choice-2015” were denied in getting of their accreditations and removed from polling stations, i.e. 2.79% of the total number of observers. At the end of the campaign Ludmila Tserashonkava was fired from Sports School of Olympics #4 Vitebsk. She was an observer of BPF at polling sta- tion #15, located in the building of secondary school № 31. She made up three complaints, devoted to PEC illegal actions in the short time. During the vote count she complained about the lack of transparent and open proce- dure of votes counting on the election day. Materials and evidences of violations compiled by “Right to choice”, be- came the basis of the main complaint not to recognize the election results. The candidate for President Tatyana Karatkevich submitted the complaint. (According to the Electoral Code, the right to appeal the election results be- longs exclusively to the candidate, and the complaint must be filed within three days). CEC considered the complaint at its meeting, during which the deputy chairman of BPF Igor Lyalkov announced the position of non-rec- ognition of the election. Igor Lyalkov had the status of CEC member with an advisory vote. However, CEC id not analyze the complaint, without as- sessing the evidence of violations of the legislation at definite polling station. CEC decision was to deny the appeal.

69 9. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OBSERVATION

The campaign “Right to choice” has made definite inferences from the monitoring and requires from the Central Commission of Belarus for Elec- tions and National Referenda, from legislative and executive authorities, including the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus the following things: To work out the criteria of the selection of the candidates for election commissions with obligatory membership of all people offered by political parties. If the number of nominated persons exceeds the maximum commis- sion membership, the priority should be to nominees from political parties. To provide the opportunity to nominate the representatives of registered candidates for the presidency to election commissions. To register Belarusian Christian Democracy party, the Party of Freedom and Progress, CSO “Tell the truth!”, the organizational structures of the hu- man rights and educational public association “Movement” For Freedom.” To set the declarative procedure for registration of CSOs, cancel the prohibi- tion of CSOs to act without state registration and criminal liability for such activities (Article 193.1 of the Criminal Code), as well as to permit the reg- istration of organizational structures of political parties and CSOs in homes belonging to their members. Create a single national public register of voters, which would exclude the possibility of any manipulations with voter lists at the polling stations. Develop a common and clear-to-public criteria how to define prohibit- ed places for collecting signatures by initiative groups and allowed ones for campaign events. To make period of agitation during the election campaign longer. To fix the notification procedure for organizing events both during elections and beyond electoral campaigns by all citizens and organizations. To consider the possibility of cancel of early voting, replacing it with oth- er procedures that will ensure the realization of the right to vote for persons who are unable to vote on election day at the place of residence. As a first step is to limit the period of early voting up to two days and fix it in methodi- cal election manual. The second, the requirements for keeping of ballot boxes for early voting in conditions that would exclude any access of unauthorized persons. To fix the written application form for the vote on the location. A voter signs the form. To create the conditions for an objective and real judicial control over the electoral process, including consideration of complaints against election 70 9. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OBSERVATION commissions, against decisions of local authorities about the formation of the election commissions and registration of initiative groups of candidates. To stop the political persecution of candidates-opponents of the govern- ment, non-state media journalists, bloggers and freelancers. To give up illi- gal arresta and other penalties under Administrative Code (violation of the order of mass actions implementation, violation of the law on mass media, hooliganism). To enter the legislation mechanisms of state financing of campaigns of candidates and political parties. To stop interfering of executive interference in the campaign activities of candidates and political parties, as well as obsta- cles in conducting of peaceful assemblies of promotional nature. To exclude the prohibition of agitation of non-participation in the elections from the leg- islation. To expand the rights of observers, including providing them with a real opportunity to monitor the keeping of ballots, ballot boxes. To give the ob- servers possibility to monitor the counting of votes, which should be clear and transparent and carried out by election commissions jointly. To fix the right of observers to take pictures or videos during the voting and during the vote count at polling stations. To rehabilitate all 11 people, illigally convicted for political reasons, and ensure equal opportunities for the realization of civil rights of all political ac- tors and citizens of Belarus.

71 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

UN – The United Nations OJSK – Open Joint Stock Company UCP – The United Civil Party NWT – Nationwide TV ODIHR OSCE – Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe BelTA –Belarusian Telegraph Agency BPF – BPF Party (Belarusian Popular Front) BRYU – Civic Society Organization “Belarusian Republican Youth Union” BSDP (H) – The Belarusian Social Democratic Party (Hramada) BCD – Belarusian Christian Democracy CSO – Civic Society Organization SSC – State Security Committee CCP-BPF – Conservative Christian Party BPF MFA – Ministry of Foreign Affairs MIA – Ministry of Internal Affairs HRE CSO – Human rights and educational civic society organization DDIA – District Department of Internal Affairs BTUREI – Belarusian Trade Union of Radio Electronic Industry Mass Media SBL – SCO “Society of after F.Skaryna” TEC – Territorial election commissions EI – Educational institution PEC – Precinct election commissions FTUB – Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus CEC – The Central Commission of Belarus for Elections and Republican Referenda

72