Final Report of the Observation Mission of the 2016 Parliamentary Elections

FINAL REPORT OF THE OBSERVATION MISSION OF THE 2016 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR FAIR ELECTIONS AND DEMOCRACY (ISFED)

2017 Tbilisi FINAL REPORT OF THE OBSERVATION MISSION OF THE 2016 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

REPORT PREPARED BY

MIKHEIL BENIDZE TAMAR BARTAIA ELENE NIJARADZE NINO RIJAMADZE NINO KHITARISHVILI TATIA KINKLADZE TUTA CHKHEIDZE

ISFED election observation mission was made possible by the generous support of the American People through the financial assistance of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The mission was also supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Federal Foreign Office of Germany, Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Georgia, and the European Union. The contents of this publication belong solely to the International Society for Fair Elec- tions and Democracy and may not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, the United States Government, Federal Republic of Germany, Embassy of the Kingdom of Netherlands in Georgia, European Union, or NED CONTENT

I. ABOUT THE OBSERVATION MISSION 4

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 III. POLITICAL CONTEXT 10 IV. LEGISLATIVE REFORM 12

Electoral System 12

Other Changes in the Legislative Framework 12 V. VOTER LISTS 14 `` VI. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION 15 Central Election Commission 15 District and Precinct Election Commissions 15

Establishing Boundaries of Constituencies 15

VII. THE INTERAGENCY COMMISSION FOR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS 16 VIII. THE STATE AUDIT OFFICE 18 IX. PRE-ELECTION PERIOD 20

Monitoring Mission and Methodology 20 Misuse of Administrative Resources for Electoral Purposes 20 Vote Buying 21 Harassment/Intimidation on Alleged Political Grounds 22 Violence and Assaults 23 Dismissal from Work on Political Grounds 23 Participation of unauthorized individuals in pre-election campaigning 24 Hate Speech 24 X. MEDIA ENVIRONMENT 25 XI. MONITORING OF PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD BY PARTIES/ELECTORAL SUBJECTS DURING THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD 26 XII. ELECTION DAY 28 First round of the elections 28 Rerun Elections 32 Election Runoffs 32 XIII. COMPLAINTS FILED ON AND FOLLOWING THE ELECTION DAY 36 XIV. RECOMMENDATIONS 46 I. ABOUT THE OBSERVATION MISSION

The present report summarizes results of monitoring the with disabilities in Tbilisi. In addition to the STOs, the Election 2016 Elections of the Parliament of Georgia by the Interna- Day mission also included 70 mobile teams, 73 DEC observ- tional Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED). IS- ers, 15 lawyers and 15 operators. FED conducted pre-election, election day and post-election monitoring of the 2016 Parliamentary elections throughout ISFED observed the rerun elections of October 22 in all four Georgia. It monitored the first round of the 2016 Parliamenta- electoral precincts and both DECs in Zugdidi no.66 and Mar- ry elections on October 8, rerun elections on October 22 and neuli no.36 majoritarian election districts. runoffs on October 30. ISFED monitored the runoffs on October 30, 2016 in 50 ISFED carried out the pre-election monitoring3 of the Octo- election districts of Georgia. ISFED monitoring mission for ber 8, 2016 Parliamentary elections through 68 long-term the runoffs consisted of over 600 STOs, 42 mobile teams and observers (LTOs) in all election districts3 of Georgia over the observers assigned to each DEC. Similar to the first round of period of three months1 prior to the Election Day. Areas of the parliamentary elections, ISFED relied on PVT for mon- focus of the pre-election monitoring included: use of admin- itoring the runoffs. ISFED assigned 452 STOs to randomly istrative resources, activities of the election administration selected national representative sample of polling stations. and political parties, formation of voter lists, acts of political ISFED observers were also present in all precincts of the fol- harassment, intimidation and vote buying. lowing election districts: Marneuli no.36, Akhaltsikhe-Adigeni no.44, Kutaisi no.49 and Zugdidi no.66. For the runoffs ISFED Pre-election monitoring of the runoffs on October 30 was staffed its incidents’ and SMS centers in the central office conducted by 38 LTOs of ISFED in 50 election districts with 10 operators and 11 lawyers. where majoritarian MP candidates could not clear 50%+1 threshold in the first round of the parliamentary elections. ISFED monitored the post-election period after the first round by means of 68 observers and lawyers. ISFED observation The Election Day observation covered the following four focused on activities of the election administration, com- components: opening and setting up of polling stations, the plaints process in DECs and the creation of summary proto- process of voting, counting of votes and tabulation of results. cols. A total of 42 ISFED observers monitored the post-elec- ISFED observation mission for the October 8, 2016 Parlia- tion period following the runoff elections. mentary elections comprised of nearly 1000 accredited and trained observers deployed in precinct, district and central Based on the analysis of irregularities detected during the electoral commissions. ISFED short-term observers (STOs) observation, ISFED developed recommendations with the monitored the process of voting and tabulation in PECs purpose of improving the electoral legislation and environ- through the Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT) methodology4 . ment. The present report provides an account of observation ISFED deployed 600 STOs to randomly selected national results and introduces subsequent recommendations. representative sample of polling stations throughout Georgia, 195 STOs to potentially problematic precincts and to precincts particularly worthwhile for observation5 , 10 STOs were assigned to polling stations adapted to the needs of persons

1 The long-term observation of the pre-election period for the first round of the elections ran from July 1 to October 7. 2 Pre-election monitoring of the runoffs ran from October 9 to October 27. 3 Mtatsminda, Vake, Saburtalo, Krtsanisi, Isani, Samgori, Chughureti, Didube, Nadzaladevi, Gldani, Sagarejo, Gurjaani, Lagodekhi, Kvareli, Telavi, Akhmeta, Mtskheta, Rustavi, Marneuli, Gardabani, Kaspi, Gori, Khashuri, Akhaltsikhe, Adigeni, Kutaisi (three majoritarian districts), Kharagauli, Baghdati, Zestaponi, Chiatura, Lanchkhuti, Ozurgeti, Chokhatauri, Poti, Senaki, Abasha, Khobi, Zugdidi, Tsalenjikha, Chkhorotsku, Batumi (three majoritarian districts), Kobuleti, Khelvachauri, Keda. 4 PVT is an election observation methodology that enables detection of irregularities in a timely manner, evaluation of the entirety Election Day process and verification of accuracy of official results. PVT relies on statistical methods and information and communication technology (ICT) to provide accurate and timely information about the process of voting and tabulation. PVT provides the most accurate and timely information on the conduct of voting and counting and is the only methodology that can independently verify accuracy of the official results as announced by the electoral commission. 5 Electoral precincts that proved to be problematic in terms of irregularities or conflict situations on the basis of the three most recent elections (the parliamentary elections of 2012, the presidential elections of 2013 and the local self-government elections of 2014), as well as electoral precincts where competition between parties and/or candidates in the 2012 parliamentary elections and in the 2014 local self-governmental elections was a close race.

4 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ELECTORAL REFORM was held about the need to reform election administration composition at the relevant CSO recommendations were Ahead of the 2016 Parliamentary elections, civil society left without consideration. The parliament did not support organizations, political parties and other stakeholders were introduction of mandatory gender quotas as a temporary actively discussing and urging the authorities to reform measure for increasing women participation in politics. the electoral system. In this regard, the CSOs and political parties proposed specific recommendations. However, In light of the above, ISFED believes that a comprehensive regrettably, the government showed lack of political will for and substantial electoral reform that would have improved any substantial changes in the electoral system. Although, the election environment has not been implemented. The as per the ruling of the Constitutional Court, changes were new parliament and the government should carry out a introduced in territorial boundaries of majoritarian election reform of the electoral system and introduce other essential districts so that the difference between the numbers of legislative changes without delay. voters among the constituencies did not exceed 15%. In addition, the 30% election threshold for electing a majoritari- ELECTION ADMINISTRATION an MP was increased to 50%+1. All three tiers of the election administration mostly worked in Changes were also introduced in rules about voting at abidance by the principles of openness and transparency. special polling stations, presence of police outside a polling Election stakeholders and other interested parties had unob- station for safety purposes and several other rules. structed access to public information, commission meetings and decisions made by the election administration. ISFED To the dismay of the expectations, the authorities did not set welcomes steps made by the election administration for up a working group to discuss changes in the electoral leg- participation of ethnic minorities in the electoral process and islation with participation of all stakeholders. No discussion

5 for adapting polling stations to the needs of persons with disabilities. The CEC campaigns for raising voter awareness were also positive.

However, certain shortcomings were detected in the work of the CEC, as well as district and precinct election commissions.

A particular issue of concern is the PEC composition process, which mostly lacked transparency and clarity. The selection of professional PEC members by the district election commissions (DEC) seemed to be based on preexisting lists in the hands of the DEC members. This gave rise to suspicions about selection of some PEC members based on political affiliation instead of objective criteria.

During the pre-election period the CEC made a few contro- versial decisions, some of which may have fallen within legal requirements from a formal point of view but their practical implementation triggered significant glitches, while others set a dangerous precedent. Such decisions concerned issues like registration of some political parties in violation of requirements of the law; determination of sequence number for some electoral subjects; narrow interpretation of the status of charity organizations for electoral purposes; revoking the registration of the electoral bloc Topadze - Industrialists, Our Homeland”6.

PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

During the pre-election period political parties and candidates were able to conduct their campaigns in a competitive The pre-election process was marked by violent incidents in environment. Electoral subjects enjoyed equal access to the final days before the elections, including the explosion media and freedom to deliver their pre-electoral messages of the car of opposition MP Givi Targamadze, assault with a to voters. However, ISFED identified a number of violations firearm on an opposition majoritarian candidate, and physi- during the pre-election period, including alleged political cal assault on activists of the ruling party. intimidation/harassment; campaigning by unauthorized persons; damaging of agitation materials, interference with The pre-election campaigning was negatively affected by election campaigning; and vote buying incidents. However, release of illegally recorded videos allegedly depicting per- these violations were not large-scale or massive irregularities sonal lives of politicians. These videos also contained threats that would have raised serious suspicions about compliance against politically active individuals and demands that they of the elections with democratic standards. abandon politics; otherwise, details of their personal lives would be disclosed. Such attempts to blackmail individuals active in political and public areas had the apparent aim of discrediting the political spectrum. 6 For detailed assessment of these issues please see Chapter VI of this Report

6 During the active phase of the election campaign, audio re- To offset the effects of the ruling party’s use of administra- cordings of a conversation that allegedly took place between tive resources, some opposition parties were tying to entice Mikheil Saakashvili, former president of Georgia, and some voters by promising different types of material and non-ma- United National Movement (UNM) members was leaked on terial resources through their representatives or candidates. the Internet. The recordings suggested that these individu- The State Audit Office (SAO) mostly responded to reported als were debating a revolutionary scenario for the electoral violations in a timely manner; however, SAO’s mandate to processes. Leaking of the recording was preceded by state- study alleged facts of vote buying is limited, while whenever ments made by representatives of the ruling political party, it referred a case to a court the latter failed to provide an alleging that the UNM was planning to cause a destabiliza- adequate legal evaluation. tion and unrest for the elections. The investigation after the leaks was not effective as investigative authorities have not An important trend was the use of hate speech by electoral yet established authenticity of the recordings or examined subjects and their representatives; for some electoral sub- the fact of illegal wiretapping. jects hate speech became their niche. Davit Tarkhan-Moura- vi, Irma Inashvili – Alliance of Patriots of Georgia were Cases of political harassment and intimidation of party activ- infamous for their discriminatory statements. Dissemination ists began to appear 2 months before the Election Day and of these statements was promoted by Obiektivi TV – a televi- became more frequent as the elections drew near. Repre- sion company affiliated with the party. sentatives of opposition parties reported verbal harassment, threats to revoke social assistance and other forms of intimi- Law enforcement was adequately mobilized at nearly dation to ISFED observers. Although no massive acts of vio- all large-scale meetings organized by parties and safety lence occurred, as the elections drew near, alarming instanc- measures were followed. However, acts of interference with es of physical confrontation between political opponents and campaigning were still detected. In most of such cases, activists were detected. Response of relevant authorities to campaign events were attended by activists of other parties alleged acts of harassment against candidates was ineffec- that held opposing views or by local self-government em- tive and inefficient. In a number of instances, investigation ployees, who attempted to interfere with campaigning which was launched and the Interagency commission studied the often led to confrontations. facts in question but these measures remain pending even after the elections. Acts of harassment and intimidation in Over the last few years there have been fewer cases of between the first and second rounds of the elections were dismissals of civil servants due to their political affiliation and especially noticeable in election districts where opposition dismissal from work is no longer used as a punitive mea- candidates had garnered more votes or where there was a sure against civil servants that hold opposing political views. close race in the first round. However, several facts of dismissal for political reasons were still reported in the pre-election period. Misuse of administrative resources was one of the factors that hindered the pre-election campaign. It was mostly local MEDIA ENVIRONMENT self-governments that used administrative resources in various forms in favor of the ruling party. A few days before ap- Despite some challenges, media environment during the plicable legal restrictions came into effect, many municipali- pre-election period remained pluralistic. Electoral subjects ties made changes in their budgets to introduce new social were able to present their programs and visions to the and infrastructural projects to be launched and implemented public in free and equal conditions. Media provided a mostly during the election period7 balanced coverage of campaign meetings and political debates. Vote buying was also evident during the pre-election period. The ownership dispute around the TV station Rustavi 2 was

7 See: http://www.electionsportal.ge/geo/map?map=14&category=3.0&dist=0&majolqi=0 a key issue in the pre-election media landscape. The court

7 inadequate handling of electoral documentation, restriction of observer rights, campaigning at the polling station and presence of unauthorized individuals at the polling station were found in some precincts.

Similarly to the process of opening of polling stations, the voting process went without any major violations and incidents at most precincts. Instances of inadequate handling of electoral documentation were found at a number of polling stations, in addition to isolated instances of violation of ballot secrecy, inking procedures, voting without proper identification documents, ballot papers without necessary signatures or seals, restriction of observer rights, campaigning and presence of unauthorized individuals at the polling station. Observers detected tension outside several polling stations but it did not have a material impact on the voting process, proceedings and some statements made by government except in the case of one polling station. representatives have raised concerns that the case is more than a private dispute and it aims to influence the editorial ISFED observation detected most important violations and policy of the broadcaster. irregularities during counting process. Most violations identified at polling stations were related to improper handling During the pre-election period four TV companies – GDS, of summary protocols. Acts of violence were observed in a Imedi TV, Maestro Studio Ltd. and the Public Broadcaster number of polling stations. Important violations identified in jointly commissioned an exit poll from a company called TNS the counting process questioned validity of results on sever- Opinion, while Rustavi 2 commissioned an exit poll from al polling stations. GFK. Exit poll results published by the two companies were contradictory to each other and both greatly differed from Although ISFED observers found violations of electoral official election results. procedures in a number of polling stations, including important irregularities, overall these violations did not have a ELECTION DAYS large-scale impact. Isolated incidents could not have had any substantial effect on expression of free will of voters and Based on its monitoring findings, ISFED can confidently therefore, on final results of the proportional elections. state, that in absolute majority of electoral precincts the October 8, 2016 parliamentary elections were conducted Based on the analysis of PVT data, ISFED can confidently in abidance by legal regulations. ISFED finds that opening say that, during the runoff elections, opening of polling sta- of polling stations and the voting process proceeded in a tions and the process of polling mostly proceeded in a calm calm and orderly manner, without significant violations. The and orderly manner throughout Georgia. process of vote count proved to be a challenge as important violations and incidents were detected at a number of polling Based on reports of ISFED observers, no substantial viola- stations, including acts of violence, which later served as the tions were found in the process of opening and setting up basis for invalidating results at several polling stations. of polling stations. Several instances of improper handling In the first round of the parliamentary elections ISFED of documentation, restriction of observer rights and viola- observers did not report any significant violations during tion of the procedure for casting of lots were found. During opening and setting up of polling stations. Isolated cases of the voting process, ISFED observers detected the isolated

7 ĈĞ: goo.gl/Ga4kN1

8 incidents involving such significant violations as breach of secrecy of vote and inking procedures. Marneuli Majoritarian election district proved to be the most problematic in this regard.

ISFED monitoring revealed important types of violations during the process of vote count in several polling stations, including: mismatch in number of ballots and number of voter signatures; isolated cases of improper filling-in or altering of summary protocols; a mass violation of ballot secrecy in one polling station.

Because the above violations were isolated incidents and none of them had a large-scale effect ISFED believes that they did not appear to influence final election outcomes.

POST-ELECTION PERIOD

In connection to violations detected during the first round of the elections and in the runoffs, ISFED observers filed a total of 462 complaints with precinct and district level commissions. Complaints were filed over the following types of violations: inadequate handling of electoral documentation, improperly filled summary protocols, altered summary protocols, mismatch of number of ballots and voter signatures, voting without proper documentation, restriction of observer rights, violation of sealing rules, violation of inking procedures, etc. ISFED observers reacted on a total of 639 violations. Majority of these violations had been caused by lack of professionalism and qualification of electoral commission members, especially in cases of related to summary protocols.

ISFED representatives had opportunity to attend the complaint adjudication process and voice the position of the organization about the submitted complaints. However, electoral commissions mostly avoided adequate examina- tion of electoral documentation and review of voting results, relying only on explanatory statements of commission members when making decisions.

9 III. POLITICAL CONTEXT

By virtue of the Constitution of Georgia and the Georgian actions and investigation of these cases were ineffective. Election Code, parliamentary elections were held under a mixed electoral system where 73 mandates of the 150-seat In addition to these videos, the pre-election period was also legislature were allocated from single-mandate constituen- marked with cases of secret recordings of conversations cies, known as “majoritarian” election districts and remaining between politicians and media representatives released 77 seats were allocated from party lists in a national propor- on social media in an attempt to discredit the individuals tional system8. concerned. Majority of these facts were not followed with effective investigation and the origin of these recordings or Changing the electoral system was one of the major issues who released them remains unknown to the public. of political discussions. Despite the consensus reached in 2015 with involvement of NGOs, major opposition parties The official pre-election period ahead of the 2016 Parlia- and the president on switching from the existing electoral mentary elections lasted four months. Despite the lengthy system to a proportional one9 , the eighth parliament failed pre-election period, political parties and candidates only to enact subsequent Constitutional changes. The position of started active campaigning in the second half of July. Party the ruling coalition supported changing the electoral system lists were announced only right before the deadline for for the parliamentary elections in 2020, but not in 2016. submission of the lists. Majority of political parties had not presented their official campaign platforms one month prior The election period took place on the background of to the Election Day. increasing polarization and rising political temperature. This was especially fueled by an incident that took place in • POLITICAL PARTIES Kortskheli village of Zugdidi on May 22, 2016, during the local by-election in several election districts. In particular, After the President of Georgia called the Parliamentary elec- following a confrontation between the Georgian Dream (GD) tions, both existing and newly created parties announced and the UNM activists, a group of GD supporters physically their intent to participate in the elections. Among them was assaulted UNM leaders, which the police failed to prevent10. political forces created by former members of the United During the subsequent period, it seemed that the prosecu- National Movement11 , which eventually joined the Coali- tor’s office was delaying timely identification and prosecu- tion State for the People founded by Paata Burchuladze12. tion of perpetrators. Failure of the authorities to effectively Some of the non-parliamentary parties created a political respond to the incident and subsequent actions of the bloc13. As the deadline for registration of electoral subjects prosecutor’s office, including the fact that they demanded drew near, the ruling coalition Georgian Dream dissolved lighter preventive measures raised suspicions about possible and some of its former members registered as independent selective approaches from the side of government. electoral subjects for the parliamentary elections14.

Videos released in March 2016 and later in social media Certain irregularities were detected in the practice of regis- allegedly showing private lives of politicians were met with tration of electoral subjects by the CEC. Later on the basis strong reaction from the society. The videos were accom- of a statement made by the Public Register it was found that panied by threats against politicians and journalists, mostly documents used by the CEC to register several parties were women. Civil society perceived dissemination of the videos inadequate and inappropriate. After studying this matter, IS- as an attempt to discredit and blackmail the entire political FED found that the CEC had practiced pro forma approach spectrum. Despite strong public reaction, the state’s further to registration of several political parties15.

8 Articles 49 and 50 of the Constitution of Georgia; 9 Address of NGOs and political parties to the parliament of Georgia, dated May 30, 2015, is available at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/904/geo/ 10 ISFED Condemns the Violence in Zugdidi, ISFED, 22 May 2016, available at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1052/geo/ 11 New Political Center – Girchi, Giorgi Vashadze’s Civic Platform – New Georgia; 12 Prior to the elections, Girchi left the coalition Paata Burchuladze – State for the People after Burchuladze alleged that leaders of the party were secretly communicating with the founder of the ruling party, Bidzina Ivanishvili. 13 Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi, Irma Inashvili – Alliance of Georgian Patriots-United Opposition 14 Free Democrats, the Republican Party, the National Forum 15 Detailed information is available at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1131/geo/ pp.23-29

10 Eventually a total of 19 political parties and 6 electoral blocs dates gained victory in 48 majoritarian election districts. An participated in the October 8, 2016 parliamentary elec- independent candidate Salome Zurabishvili and a candidate tions16. of Topadze-Industrialists won the remaining two seats.

• RUNOFF ELECTIONS

In the first round of majoritarian races of the October 8, 2016 parliamentary elections, winning candidates were identified only in 23 out of the 73 single-mandate constituencies. Consequently, for the remaining 50 majoritarian seats the second round of elections had to be scheduled. The Central Elections Commission (CEC) set the date of majoritarian runoffs in 50 election districts for October 30.

Following the first round, top two candidates in 44 majoritarian election districts were from the Georgian Dream – Dem- ocratic Georgia and the United National Movement; in two districts the highest numbers of votes were received by the Georgian Dream’s majoritarian candidate and independent majoritarian candidates; in another two districts candidates of the Free Democrats and the Georgian Dream competed for the seats; in one majoritarian district the runoff identified a winner between Topadze-Industrialists and the Georgian Dream candidates, and in one majoritarian district a candidate of the United National Movement and an independent candidate competed against each other.

In two of the fifty majoritarian constituencies where the runoffs were held, two majoritarian candidates – opposition leaders Sandra Roelofs (the UNM) and Irakli Alasania (the Free Democrats) announced withdrawal from the second round. Their names remained on the election ballots because, according to the CEC, the election legislation does not envisage the possibility of cancelling registration of candidates that qualify for the second round of elections.

With calling of the runoff elections, opposition party candidates started reporting acts of harassment and intimidation of their supporters or coordinators in different election districts. Most of the candidates that reported harassment of opposition supporters by the authorities and the ruling party activists were candidates of the United National Movement and the Free Democrats.

Based on the results of the runoffs, the ruling party candi-

16 See: http://cesko.ge/res/docs/PartiebiParlamenti201629.09.2016.pdf

11 IV. LEGISLATIVE REFORM

One of the important challenges ahead of the 2016 par- man Model, which did not require Constitutional changes.20 liamentary elections was implementation of the electoral Despite pledges made by the parliamentary and non-parlia- reform. ISFED together with its partner organizations was mentary parties in support of changing the electoral system, actively urging the authorities to implement necessary legis- the initiative could not secure enough votes from opposition lative changes, especially for reforming the electoral sys- parties in the parliament.21 tem. Regrettably, the ruling political force did not show any political will to make any substantial changes in the electoral An important change was made in the electoral system on system. Despite expectations in the civil society, a working December 23, 2015, when the parliament of Georgia redrew group to discuss changes in the electoral legislation with boundaries of majoritarian constituencies in light of the participation of all stakeholders was not set up. Constitutional Court’s decision22 and recommendations of the Venice Commission, where constituencies fall within the Although a number of changes were carried out concerning margin of 15% deviation from the average size of a constit- the electoral system and other issues, a substantial reform uency by number of voters. The parliament also increased that would have significantly improved the election environ- vote threshold required for majoritarian candidates from 30% ment to ensure a fair playing field, was not implemented. to 50%+1.

ELECTORAL SYSTEM Despite equalizing boundaries for election districts and increasing the vote threshold required for majoritarian can- In 2015, a consensus was reached with the involvement didates, which are both positive steps forward, the existing of NGOs, major opposition parties and the president for electoral system allows for an outcome that is disproportion- replacing the existing mixed electoral system with a propor- ate and therefore, unfair.23 Specifically, a dominating party is tional one but the parliament failed to make any subsequent able to secure far more seats through majoritarian elections changes. than the voter’s actual support to the party demonstrated in proportional elections.24 This was once again clearly con- There were two Constitutional bills submitted to the Geor- firmed by the 2016 parliamentary elections where the ruling gian Parliament. According to the bill initiated by the ruling party won 76% of seats in the parliament after garnering party, changing current electoral system and replacing it with 48.68% of votes in the proportional elections.25 a proportional system would be postponed until after the 2016 parliamentary elections18, whereas the proposal of op- OTHER CHANGES IN THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK position parties offered to transition to a proportional system ahead of the 2016 parliamentary elections19. None of the Several changes were made in the legislative framework to two initiatives secured sufficient number of votes for passing. introduce new regulations for voting in the so-called special precincts , for amending rules for allocation of free advertis- At the end of the parliamentary session period, one of the ing airtime for electoral subjects27 , for police presence out- members of the ruling coalition, the Republican Party aban- side polling stations for security reasons28 , for determining doned its position and initiated a new draft of amendments criminal liability for battery or other violence inside or outside to the Election Code for transitioning to the so-called Ger- a polling station29 , etc.

17 Address of NGOs and political parties to the parliament of Georgia about the electoral system reform, dated May 30, 2015, is available at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/904/geo/ 18 Draft of Constitutional Law of Georgia, initiated by 81 MPs through the rule of legislative initiative, on Amendments to the Constitution of Georgia, #07-3/475, 3 September 2015; 19 Legislative initiative submitted by at least 200 000 voters, #18314, 8 September 2015; 20 The bill is available at: http://info.parliament.ge/#law-drafting/11999 21 See a joint statement of NGOs: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1060/geo/ 22 Decision of the Constitutional Court of Georgia #1/3/547, 28 November 2015, available at: http://www.constcourt.ge/ge/legal-acts/judgments/saqartvelos-moqalaqeebi-ucha-nanuashvili-da-mixeil-sharashid- ze-saqartvelos-parlamentis-winaagmdeg.page 23 See statements of NGOs: http://www.isfed.ge/main/933/geo/; http://www.isfed.ge/main/934/geo/ 24 For instance, in the parliamentary elections in 2008, the UNM garnered 59.18% of votes in proportional elections, while it gained 79.34% of parliamentary seats. Similar disproportionate allocation of seats occurred in 2014 – for instance, the coalition Georgian Dream gained 28% more seats in Tbilisi Sakrebulo than votes; 25 Summary protocol of final outcomes of the October 8, 2016 Parliamentary elections published by the CEC on November 16, 2016, available at: https://goo.gl/7tKfn3 26 Bill #07-3/538, 4 February 2016, initiated by the Free Democrats parliamentary faction; bill #07-2/463, 29 September 2016, initiated by the Government of Georgia; 27 Bill # 07-3/579, 19 May 2016, available at: http://info.parliament.ge/#law-drafting/12031 28 Bill #07-2/499, 8 June 2016, initiated by the government of Georgia and available at: http://info.parliament.ge/#law-drafting/12120 29Bill #07-2/499, 8 June 2016, initiated by the government of Georgia and available at: http://info.parliament.ge/#law-drafting/12119

12 Regarding the government’s bill about the so-called special precincts, ISFED considers that upholding the right of military workers to vote for the majoritarian candidates outside their place of registration is a deficiency. This regulation entails a threat of vote manipulation. In response, NGOs registered a draft in the parliament, according to which military workers would have been able to vote in majoritarian elections if they were registered in the election district concerned. However, the government ignored this initiative.

Election administration composition reform was never considered, albeit it is very important for improving independence of the election administration and ensuring political neutrality. The Parliament of Georgia voted down the bill initiated by the Task Force on Women’s Political Participation to introduce 50% quotas in proportional party lists on parliamentary and local self-government elections. It also voted down a bill that ensured 30% representation of candidates of different sex on party lists.

13 V. VOTER LISTS

On June 22, 2016, amendments were made to the Election Code of Georgia to determine the rules for participation in 2016 parliamentary elections of voters who were removed from registration according to their place of residence, or whose registration was declared invalid or who were registered without indication of address.

To participate in the 2016 elections for the parliament of Georgia, such voters had to appear at the Agency for Development of State Services before 1 August 2016 and be registered according to their place of residence. These voters were exempt from fees for issuance of an ID card and for taking a photo (except in the case of expedited service).

According to the CEC, 59 242 voters registered without an indication of address or removed from registration were added to the voter list (including 23 988 voters registered without an indication of address and 35 254 voters removed from registration).30

ISFED welcomes the changes made in the Election Code to introduce rules for re-registering voters that have been removed from registration. We believe that this decision will help improve voter lists and protect active suffrage.

30 See: https://goo.gl/rWSyTE

14 VI. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL ELECTION COMMISSION about validity of the Centrists’ electoral registration and accuracy of information submitted to the CEC for registration. The CEC worked in abidance by the principles of openness The National Agency for Public Registry publicly declared and transparency. Election stakeholders and other interest- that the Centrists had no authorized representatives. As a ed parties had unobstructed access to public information, result, the CEC abolished electoral registration of the Cen- commission meetings and decisions made by the election trists and other parties without an authorized representative administration. For the 2016 parliamentary elections the registered at the Public Registry. CEC continued to create an equal election environment for persons with disabilities. Videos produced by the CEC were The CEC Chair made a decision to abolish electoral reg- available for voters with hearing impairments. In addition, istration of the electoral bloc Topadze-Industrialists, Our number of adapted polling stations increased from 883 in Homeland citing failure of the bloc to submit party list before 2015 to 1115 in 2016.31 the deadline. The decision was appealed by a representative of the electoral bloc, who stated that they had submitted all Despite the above positive steps, the CEC made several necessary documents including the party list. The court up- problematic decisions that were criticized by ISFED, in- held the plaintiff’s arguments and evidence, overturned the cluding decisions about registration of electoral subjects, decision of the CEC Chair and ordered the latter to restore determination of election district boundaries and determina- the bloc’s registration.32 Notably the CEC did not challenge tion of sequence number for electoral subjects. In addition, the decision in the appellate court. Therefore, the basis for at times, the CEC’s interpretation of individual norms of the invalidation of the electoral registration of the bloc remains Election Code was narrow and formalistic. This was espe- unclear, so does the reason why the CEC was reluctant to cially evident in the CEC decision concerning violation of continue the dispute in the appellate court if it had the legal campaigning rules by the non-profit (non-commercial) legal basis for cancelling the registration. entity Georgian Dream - Healthy Future. • ASSIGNING SEQUENCE NUMBER TO SOME ELECTORAL • ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OF SOME POLITICAL PARTIES SUBJECTS

The CEC granted electoral registration to about ten political On August 24, the CEC adopted a resolution no.60/2016 to parties without any authorized representative defined on allow electoral subjects running in the parliamentary elec- the basis of the extract from the Register of Political Parties tions to retain the sequence number that they were assigned at the National Agency for Public Registry. Such parties for the previous local self-government elections, while were not authorized to apply to the CEC for registration and remaining parties, except for the three parties that garnered documents submitted by them to the CEC for registration most of the votes in the previous parliamentary elections, should have been considered flawed. Nevertheless, the CEC got their sequence numbers by casting of lots. Due to this registered the parties disregarding the presumption of irrefut- decision, some political parties received their sequence ability of records kept by the Public Registry. numbers one week before others, which put other parties whose sequence number was determined later by casting of Particularly noteworthy case is the CEC decision about lots at a disadvantage. Some political parties criticized this registration of the political union (p/u) Centrists. The situation decision. The Republican Party challenged the CEC resolu- created around electoral registration of the party suggests tion in court but their appeal was rejected and the resolution that the CEC did not adequately verify documents submit- was upheld.33 ted by the party and may have registered it based on a pro forma approach.

The legal dispute ISFED v Centrists revealed questions

31 See the information at: http://cesko.ge/geo/static/2173/shshm-amomrchevlebi 32 Documents of the legal dispute are available at: http://sachivrebi.cec.gov.ge/info.php?id=3853 33 For details of the legal dispute, please see: http://sachivrebi.cec.gov.ge/info.php?id=3821

15 • DEFINITION OF THE STATUS OF CHARITY ORGANIZATIONS BY THE CEC

Non-profit (non-commercial) legal entity Georgian Dream – Healthy Future is a charity organization that provided free medical examinations for nearly 200 teachers during the pre-election period, organized by a member of Tbilisi Sakrebulo from the Georgian Dream. This raised suspicions that the Georgian Dream – Healthy Future engaged in campaigning in favor of the Georgian Dream considering that the name and the logo of the organization were similar to those of the party. The Election Code prohibits charity organizations from campaigning.

Despite the flagrant violation of the election legislation, the CEC found that the Georgian Dream – Healthy Future had not violated the law since the Ministry of Finance of Georgia had not granted it the status of a charity organization. commission members relied on their individual assessments for selection of candidates. Preference was given to expe- Such interpretation of the law creates a risk that similar or- rienced and apolitical candidates. ISFED welcomes that in ganizations will choose to never register with a tax agency in some cases commission members took into consideration an attempt to bypass the Election Code, as their goal is not the candidates’ participation in election schools and other to get any tax exemptions but to participate in campaigning election-related voluntary experiences.34 bypassing the law. This will promote improper practice and organizations engaged in charity work will be free to partici- However, in most DECs selection of PEC members began pate in pre-election campaigning. without the DEC Chair presenting at the meeting the number of candidates, selection of criteria and other procedures that DISTRICT AND PRECINCT ELECTION COMMISSIONS are important for transparency.

• IRREGULARITIES IN THE PROCESS OF SELECTION OF PEC In various districts, ISFED observers learned from various MEMBERS sources about existence of pre-determined lists that the DEC members should have used during selection of PEC ISFED observers reported that the process of selection of members. According to opposition representatives, these PEC members by district commissions fell short of stan- lists were dominated by family members and relatives of the dards of transparency and objectivity. Georgian Dream activists. ISFED observers obtained such lists of pre-determined lists of PEC members in districts of In a few districts, selection of PEC members was con- Ozurgeti, Kobuleti, Samtredia and Senaki. Comparison of ducted in abidance by applicable procedures. Majority of these lists to the PEC members selected by the DECs in

34 Such approach of DECs was found in Borjomi, Kutaisi, Poti, Ambrolauri, Tsalenjikha, Akhalkalaki, Rustavi, Nadzaladevi. Chair of Khulo DEC announced selection criteria as the meeting began.

16 these districts revealed that a vast majority of selected can- Pursuant to the Election Code, the CEC determined bound- didates were in the pre-existing lists. aries for 30 majoritarian districts, including Batumi Election district, while boundaries for the remaining three districts in In addition, process of selection of PEC members in Gori Adjara A/R remained undetermined up until July 14, 2016, and Akhaltsikhe was not based on open elections among and electoral subjects seeking to participate in elections in all nominated candidates and there was no open discussion these constituencies were unable to register. of applications. DEC members arrived at the meeting with pre-marked lists of candidates for each precinct that they Despite gaps in the Law on Adjara A/R Supreme Council simply signed during the meeting. During selection of PEC Elections, the Supreme Council did not introduce neces- members in Gori, DEC members mostly voted in favor of the sary amendments to tackle problems related to drawing of first six candidates on the list. boundaries. Therefore, on July 14, 2016, the Supreme Elec- tion Commission of Adjaraestablished that election district If DECs coordinate their positions about which candidates boundaries for Adjara A/R Supreme Council Elections would to choose and make lists of desired candidates before the coincide with boundaries of majoritarian districts determined selection process begins, it is important for transparency to under the Election Code and by the CEC. disclose where this selection took place and what criteria they relied on for selection of each candidate. The process should also be open for monitoring organizations. However, it is a cause of concern if such lists are prepared without any prior discussions between DEC members. Such practice creates suspicions about potential political interests in the process as the integrity of DECs may have been compro- mised or DECs may have consulted with third parties in the selection process.

Composition of electoral commissions has been criticized before. A number of irregularities were detected in the competition for selection of new DEC members by the CEC in early 2016. ISFED monitoring of the process found that the criteria used by the CEC for evaluation of hundreds of candidates were. Selection of candidates with past political affiliation for the ‘professional’ DEC member positions raised certain questions at the time.35

ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES OF CONSTITUENCIES

By virtue of new regulations introduced in the Election Code of Georgia on December 23, 2015, election district borders were predominately determined under the Election Code, while the CEC was put in charge of redrawing boundaries for election districts in Tbilisi, Rustavi, Kutaisi and Batumi.36 The Election Code did not provide any regulations as to how to determine election district boundaries for Adjara A/R Supreme Council Elections.

35 Report of Monitoring the Competition for Selection of DEC Members, ISFED, 1 April 2016: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1034/geo/ 36 Articles 110 and 1101 of the organic law of Georgia, the Election Code of Georgia

17 VII. THE INTERAGENCY COMMISSION FOR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS

The Interagency Commission for Free and Fair Elections is an institution that operates under the Electoral Code to identify violations of the election law by civil servants and take further actions in response to these violations.

During the pre-election period, the Interagency Commission started working in compliance with the terms prescribed by the law and met on a regular basis. However, often discussions proceeded amid political confrontations and exchange of accusations and issues considered during these meetings frequently fell outside the scope of the Commission mandate.

The Commission issued four recommendations and an interim report during the pre-election period. ISFED welcomes launching of the campaign Violence Harms Elections under the initiative of the Commission, with the aim of promoting non-violent environment for elections. A special video was produced within the campaign where political party representatives talked about importance of violence-free elections. The Ministry of Justice carried out important initiatives during the pre-election campaign to allow citizens to receive their ID cards free of charge and through a simplified procedure.37

In the future, the law should clearly define the mandate of the Commission, procedure for submitting reports/applications, format for reviewing issues and applicable procedures. The law should provide for Interagency Commission mecha- nisms for responding to and preventing acts of violence and harassment/intimidation based on one’s political affiliation. In addition, it is vital to establish a system for implementing and monitoring recommendations issued by the Commission.

Detailed information is available at: https://goo.gl/1R0tGT pp.5-6

18 VIII. THE STATE AUDIT OFFICE

For the 2016 parliamentary elections, activities of the State Paata Burchuladze engaged in social/political activities Audit Office (SAO) were mostly positive. The SAO was long time before establishing a party; however, because he objective and impartial in reviewing complaints submitted hadn’t publicly declared his electoral goals before May, he by both the ruling party as well as the opposition during the was not subject to regulations that apply to political parties. pre-election period. Unlike the 2012 parliamentary elections, This gave him an advantage over other parties. decisions made in similar cases did not provide different standards for different parties.

ISFED filed a total of four complaints with the SAO about possible vote buying. Information about one complaint was referred to the Office of the Prosecutor of Georgia, one complaint is still pending, one served as the basis for preparing a protocol of administrative offence with the sanction of 8,000 GEL fine, and the SAO did not find any violation in connection to the remaining fourth complaint.

During the pre-election monitoring, problems related to definition of individuals with declared electoral goals and the methodology for granting such status arose. These problems became evident after (physical/legal) individuals not registered as a political party actively started pursuing activities that are characteristic to political subjects. For instance,

19 IX. PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

MONITORING MISSION AND METHODOLOGY MISUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES FOR ELECTORAL PUR- POSES The Presidential Decree of June 3 was published on June 8, 2016 , setting October 8, 201638 as the date for the parlia- During the pre-election monitoring of the parliamentary elec- mentary elections. As a result, the official pre-election period tions and the runoffs, ISFED monitored the use of admin- began on June 8, 2016 and lasted four months. istrative resources by political parties, candidates/electoral subjects, including the use of material, financial and human ISFED started monitoring the pre-election period of the resources available to the central and local self-government parliamentary elections on July 1, 2016; however, ISFED’s authorities for the advancement of electoral/political purpos- pre-election reports also covered developments and inci- es. dents that occurred prior to the launch of the monitoring and may have affected the election environment. ISFED carried Observation showed that local self-government bodies often out the pre-election monitoring in all election districts of engaged in such misuse of administrative resources. ISFED Georgia through 68 LTOs. ISFED monitored the pre-elec- identified a total of 28 instances of misuse of administrative tion period of the second round of the elections through 38 resources during the pre-election period. In most of these LTOs deployed in all election districts where the runoffs took cases, resources were used in favor of the ruling party. place. Different municipalities engaged in different forms of misuse ISFED LTOs are guided by international standards for ob- of administrative resources, including: server organizations39 , implying comprehensive, objective and transparent observation of elections. Pre-election moni- • print media funded by the local budget campaigning in toring of ISFED focused on the following areas: favor of majoritarian MPs from the ruling party; • officials using vehicles owned by the municipal agencies • Monitoring public meetings and political activities of po- during campaign activities; litical parties/electoral subjects as well as promises that • restrictions in availability of buildings owned by the local they made to voters; self-governments to opposition parties; • Monitoring of election administration, which mostly • majoritarian MP candidates attending and campaigning entails monitoring composition of election administration during events funded by the budget; and its activities; • pre-election campaigning in favor of the ruling political • Detecting and acting on political intimidation/harass- party and its candidates using municipality’s official web- ment, obstruction of political activities and alleged site and the Facebook page. vote-buying; • Detecting and studying any misuse of public resources; As the pre-election campaign began, some municipalities started making changes in their local budgets in order to During the monitoring ISFED relied on public information direct funds towards social and infrastructural projects. requested from administrative agencies, as well as reports Although the Election Code prohibits such changes within received from electoral subjects, media outlets, NGOs and 60 days ahead of elections and municipalities mostly abided individual citizens. Each fact obtained by ISFED was verified by this requirement, launch of social campaigns and mo- with eyewitnesses and parties involved in the incident. While bilization of budget funds for social projects created sus- conducting the monitoring, ISFED also reported the inci- picions that initiation of projects or increase of spending in dents to the Interagency Commission for Free and Fair Elec- some municipalities had to do with the formal launch of the tions to ensure that actions in response to these incidents pre-election campaign. were taken in a timely manner. The so-called SMS Service introduced by some municipal-

38 The Presidential Decree is available at: http://cesko.ge/res/old/other/33/33940.pdf 39 In the process of monitoring ISFED follows Declaration of Global Principles for Nonpartisan Election Observation and Monitoring by Citizen Organizations, available at http://www.gndem.org/declaration-of-global-principles; while in evaluation it is guided by and shares the spirit of OSCE Copenhagen Document

20 ities contained signs of misuse of administrative resources. Local executive bodies sent out mass text messages about The SAO examined the incidents in a timely manner and re- infrastructural projects that had been completed. While ferred them to court for further actions. However, the court’s the use of the above means as a way to keep population responses to the violations were ineffective, which encour- informed about local government activities is beneficial and ages vote buying. It is unfortunate that the government does welcomed, it is peculiar that municipalities started using the not pay adequate attention to such form of political corrup- text-messaging service during the pre-election period. tion and none of the perpetrators were prosecuted.

• VOTE BUYING Particularly noteworthy was the court’s ineffective response to vote buying by the political union Centrists. After ISFED The pre-election campaigning ahead of the parliamentary learned about the vote buying incident, it filed a complaint in elections was marked by a noticeable trend of vote buying. court with appropriate jurisdiction, as per the Election Code, ISFED identified a total of 12 vote-buying incidents during but the court refused to admit the complaint stating that the the pre-election period of the first and the second rounds of CEC must examine the issue and present a legal decision. the parliamentary elections. Despite a number of prohibitions The CEC refused to deal with the vote buying issue and de- provided by the election legislation, political parties, candi- clared that disputes involving vote buying should be consid- dates and their representatives were using different methods ered only by court.40 to entice voters with money and gifts. ISFED filed three applications with the SAO and one com- Eventually the court admitted the case and considered it but plaint with court demanding a probe into the vote buying it delivered a legally unsubstantiated decision. Despite clear incidents and further actions. signs of vote buying in the case in question, the first instance

40 Detailed information about the case of p/u the Centrists is available here: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1118/geo/ pp. 8-11

21 court delivered an incorrect legal assessment of the facts. Alleged acts of intimidation were detected during selection When the decision was challenged in the appellate court, of PEC leaders. In PECs where members appointed by the CEC removed the Centrists from registration citing an oppositions parties were selected for leadership positions error in the party’s registration documents. As a result, the (PEC chair or secretary), the PEC members participating in Appellate Court abolished the decision of the first instance the voting later resigned; PEC protocol was doctored in one court, whereas because the deregistration occurred prior to case to replace the name of elected PEC Secretary with the the court hearing the court canceled the proceedings stating name of another PEC member. that ISFED’s request to revoke registration of the Centrists had already been granted. However, ISFED believes that un- Authorities’ response to acts of alleged harassment of der para.3, Article 32 of the Administrative Procedure Code, candidates was insufficient and ineffective; in some cases the court should have considered the part of the complaint investigation was launched and the incidents were examined that concerned vote buying, even after the party registration by the Interagency Commission but these measures are still was canceled. pending even after the elections are over.

The court dispute concerning possible vote buying by the • INTERFERENCE WITH CAMPAIGNING Centrists clearly suggests the lack of state policy for com- bating the most severe form of political corruption - vote ISFED found instances of interference with campaigning buying. generally by disrupting public meetings of candidates and vandalizing offices. ISFED identified a total of 19 incidents, • HARASSMENT/INTIMIDATION ON ALLEGED POLITICAL including 11 against the United National Movement (UNM), GROUNDS 3 against independent majoritarian candidates and two against the Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia; re- One of the areas of focus of ISFED’s pre-election monitoring maining incidents aimed to disrupt the campaigns of the was identification of instances of harassment/intimidation on Alliance of Patriots, the Free Democrats and Paata Burchu- alleged political grounds, including: ladze-State for the People (one incident against each party).

• Harassment/intimidation on alleged political grounds Campaign events were mostly attended by local self-govern- against employees of state institutions, voters, political ment employees holding opposing political views or activists party representatives, electoral subject candidates; of other parties, who were trying to interfere with campaign- • Restriction of activities of voters, civil servants, political ing using different forms of interference. Sometimes this led parties, electoral subjects and other individuals with the to a confrontation. However, such physical confrontations use of various forms of violence. and counter-rallies were not widespread.

During the pre-election period ISFED identified a total of 36 On September 14, the Interagency Commission adopted a such incidents, some of which contained signs of a crime. recommendation to political parties and electoral subjects Instances of harassment and intimidation against party 41, urging them to take all possible measures to ensure that activists began two months ahead of the elections and their activists and supporters refrain from attending pre-elec- became more and more frequent as the Election Day drew tion meetings of rival political parties or their supporters, as close. Opposition party representatives reported verbal well as from staging a counter-rally against these meetings, threats, including threats to cancel social assistance and in order to eliminate all risks of verbal or physical confronta- other forms of intimidation to ISFED observers. ISFED found tion on political grounds. Despite these recommendations, instances where the law enforcement searched politically acts of physical violence and interference with campaigning active individuals, interrogated them and pressed charges, targeting political opponents became more frequent as the which gave rise to suspicions about political bias of the law Election Day approached. enforcement.

41 Recommendations of the Interagency Commission for Free and Fair Elections available at: http://www.justice.gov.ge/Ministry/Index/487

22 Law enforcement was adequately mobilized at nearly In addition, upon the initiative of the Minister of Justice, 11 all large-scale meetings organized by parties and safety political parties joined a campaign against violence during measures were followed. However, in some cases, their pre-election period and condemned violence in a special follow-up on the acts of interference with pre-election cam- video entitled “Violence Harms Elections”45 . However, paigning was inadequate and insufficient. instead of condemning and distancing themselves from the violent acts in their statements in reaction to violations • VIOLENCE AND ASSAULTS perpetrated by their activists, political parties put the blame on the other side for provoking violence. During the pre-election period, ISFED detected 16 instances of violence and assault on alleged political grounds. • DISMISSAL FROM WORK ON POLITICAL GROUNDS Confrontation between party activists often erupted during campaign events, which led to a physical assault. It is un- The monitoring of the parliamentary elections found 7 cases fortunate that electoral subjects were also involved in violent of dismissals from work on alleged political grounds.46 All incidents; some engaged in a physical confrontation during TV debates.42 seven cases were found in local self-government bodies. The individuals concerned alleged that they had been Although the violent incidents were not widespread, alarm- sacked due to their political affiliation and beliefs. Some were ing instances of physical confrontation between political op- restored to work, while others filed in court and their cases ponents and activist were detected at the Election Day drew are pending. near. As a result of the use of force and cold weapons, activists of opposition parties as well as the ruling party sustained It should be noted that over the last few years there have physical injuries.43 In addition, the pre-election process been fewer cases of dismissals of civil servants due to their was marred by cases of violence in the final days before the political affiliation and dismissal from work is no longer used elections, including the car explosion of an opposition MP as a punitive measure against civil servants that hold oppos- and an assault with a firearm on an opposition majoritarian ing political views. However, authorities should respond to candidate.44 individual cases of dismissals on political grounds in a timely and effective manner. In addition, during the pre-election

42 See the Fourth Interim Report of ISFED available at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1147/geo 43 Statement about the incident in Didinedzi Village: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1145/geo/; 44 NGOs React to Yesterday’s Explosion: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1149/geo/; 45 The video titled Violence Harms Elections, September 17, 2016, available at: https://www.facebook.com/MinistryofJusticeofGeorgia/videos/1054089911306256/ 46 SEE ISFED’s pre-election monitoring reports, available at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1072/geo/

23 period staff changes in local self-government should be kept to the minimum, in order for it not to influence pre-election processes.

• PARTICIPATION OF UNAUTHORIZED INDIVIDUALS IN PRE-ELECTION CAMPAIGNING

During the pre-election campaign ahead of the parliamentary elections, ISFED found 24 cases of participation of unauthorized individuals in the pre-election campaigning. ISFED filed 7 complaints with the election administration seeking adequate measures in response to these violations. The monitoring found that representatives of religious organizations, participated in campaigning in favor of electoral subjects, so did charity organizations, civil servants – during working hours, members of the election administration (district and precinct level commissions) and citizens of foreign countries. missions in pre-election campaigning of electoral subjects A particular issue of concern was campaigning by a charity was evident. Campaigning in favor of electoral subjects was organization – Georgian Dream-Healthy Future in favor of detected in activities of DEC members appointed by parties, while in precinct level commissions both DEC and party the ruling party. Although activities of the organization were 47 connected to the campaign of the GD, the CEC did not find appointed members engaged in campaigning. violation of campaign rules and decided that the organization did not break any laws because it was not registered as ISFED also found cases of local self-government employees a charity organization with a tax agency. Considering that campaigning on Facebook in favor of the ruling party and the organization pursued charity activities, its clearly illegal their candidates during working hours. actions were left without a legal response due to a pro forma interpretation of the law by the election administration. • HATE SPEECH

In violation of the campaign rules, former president of Some electoral subjects engaged in hate speech during Georgia, who at the time served as the Governor of Odes- campaigning, especially Davit Tarkhan Mouravi, Irma Inashvili sa Oblast, actively participated in pre-election campaign – Alliance of Patriots of Georgia who made clearly xenopho- in favor of the UNM. Saakashvili is a citizen of Ukraine and bic remarks. Majoritarian candidates and active members he is no longer holding the Georgian citizenship. He was of the party made discriminatory statements during the using technical means to address participants of the UNM pre-election campaign against ethnic minorities and vulnera- pre-election meetings and urge them for support of the ble groups. The party produced and released a xenophobic party and its majoritarian candidates. Although it was clearly campaign video; in it they used anti-Turkish statements and against the requirements of the Election Code, the election urged voters to gather ahead of the elections to express administration did not establish any violation. It explained their anti-Turkish sentiments. that Mikheil Saakashvili did not break the law on the territory of Georgia and therefore, under the Code of Administrative Members of the civil society platform No to Phobia, including Offences of Georgia, protocol of administrative offence was ISFED filed a statement with the CEC requesting launch of not prepared against him. an administrative probe into the Alliance of Patriots’ campaign video. The CEC chair prepared a protocol of adminis- Participation of members of district and precinct level com- trative offence and sent it to Tbilisi City Court for their review.

47 Similar instances were found in election districts of Baghdati, Gurjaani, Chokhatauri and Batumi

24 Based on the protocol, the court ordered the Alliance of Patriots to pay a fine of GEL 2000.

Discriminatory statements were also made by a leader of the Labor Party, Shalva Natelashvili and one of the leaders of Paata Burchuladze – State for the People, Giorgi Vashadze.

Use of hate speech by electoral subjects during the pre-election period is especially alarming as it jeopardizes peaceful, equal and stable pre-election environment.

25 X. MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

Despite some challenges, media environment during the Mr. Ivanishvili’s meetings with regional media outlets. During pre-election period remained pluralistic. Electoral subjects these meetings Ivanishvili was campaigning in favor of the were able to present their programs and visions to the Georgian Dream. No other electoral subjects had such ac- public in free and equal conditions. Media provided a mostly cess to GDS TV airtime. balanced coverage of campaign meetings and political debates. New programs and special formats on different TV During the pre-election period four TV companies – GDS, channels provided electoral subjects with an opportunity for Imedi TV, Maestro Studio Ltd. and the Public Broadcaster effective communication with voters. jointly commissioned an exit poll from a company called TNS Opinion, while Rustavi 2 commissioned an exit poll from However, certain disturbing developments in the media GFK. Exit poll results published by the two companies were landscape began to appear one year before the pre-election contradictory to each other and both greatly differed from period. In particular, in the second half of 2015, two main official election results. talk-shows were canceled on Imedi TV and employment contracts with the program creators and journalists were ISFED did not find any instances of obstruction of journalistic terminated.48 In addition, the public broadcaster’s Channel reporting or harassment of journalists in the election period, 1 dismissed a main talk-show host after several notices with the exception of the case of Gela Mtvlivishvili, head of of written warning. These events raised suspicions about Kakheti Information Center. He was assaulted by Gamge- efforts to influence editorial policy of the said broadcasters. beli of Tsnori Administrative Entity, Sighnaghi Municipality. Gamgebeli later issued a public apology and resigned. As the pre-election period began, the Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC) started monitoring 29 channels. The GNCC monitored pre-election advertising, debates, news, social/political programs and coverage of pre-election campaigns on all general broadcasters and the public broadcaster. Throughout the monitoring, the GNCC issued important and useful recommendations about a few broadcasters; it also prepared a protocol of administrative violation against several TV companies for violating the rules of public opinion research.49

The ownership dispute around the TV station Rustavi 250 was a key issue in the pre-election media environment. The case is currently under consideration of the Supreme Court. The court proceedings and especially, decisions adopted by the first instance court, as well as statements made by government representatives about the “real owners” of Rustavi 2, have raised concerns that the case is more than a private dispute and aims to influence the editorial policy of the broadcaster.

GDS TV, owned by the former PM and the founder of the Georgian Dream party Bidzina Ivanishvili, flagrantly violated the law during the pre-election period by providing a two- hour long airtime two times a week and free of charge to

48 See the information at http://rustavi2.com/ka/news/25740 49 https://goo.gl/kkvezI 50 See. http://www.transparency.ge/en/node/5654

26 XI. MONITORING OF PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD BY PARTIES/ELECTORAL SUBJECTS DURING THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

During the pre-election period ISFED monitored public meet- 250; creating a fund for starting a family; implementing pro- ings held by political parties/electoral subjects and recorded grams for support of small businesses and farmers; creating their pre-election promises. ISFED LTOs attended a total of sector corporation; funding 8000 projects annually based on 1280 public meetings51 held by political parties and electoral ideas of citizens and observing the principle of neutrality in subjects in different territorial units of Georgia. Majoritarian Georgia’s foreign policy. candidates nominated by initiative groups also held campaign meetings. During the pre-election period ahead of the Main promises made by Irakli Alasania – Free Democrats first round of the elections, from July 1 through September concerned increase of pension and minimum wage, intro- 30, 2016, LTOs monitored 1248 meetings. From October ducing improved drug policy, and directing Georgia’s foreign 13 to October 29, in majoritarian districts where the runoffs policy towards Europe and NATO. During their meetings were held coordinators attended 32 meetings. with voters Paata Burchuladze-State for the People focused on deepening trade relations with Russia and the EU, and During their meetings with voters, electoral subjects made tackling social and economic problems in the country. promises in virtually all areas. Below we summarize cam- Usupashvili-Republicans highlighted integration with Europe; paign promises made by parties that gained parliamentary promises of Shalva Natelashvili – the Georgian Labor Party seats and by main electoral subjects that participated in the concerned reducing minimum retirement age and prohibiting elections. A detailed list of promises is available in ISFED’s online loans, while Nino Burjanadze-Democratic Movement interim reports.52 promised to declare a non-bloc status for Georgia and improving relations with Russia. Main promises made by the Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia candidates concerned implementation of infrastructural projects and tackling of public transportation problem. The Georgian Dream candidates also promised free registration of lands, implementation of the employment program PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD BY POLITICAL PARTIES/ELECTORAL SUBJECTS for pensioners – Life Goes On, increasing healthcare bud- IN THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD get, increasing average teacher salary up to GEL 800 and creating vocational training centers, developing tourism and Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia 544 creating jobs. United National Movement 307 Irakli Alasania – Free Democrats 130 Main promises made during the UNM campaign meetings Paata Burchuladze – State for the People 97 included: launching of employment program; implementing a Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi, Irma Inashvili – Alliance of Patriots of number of financial measures, including reducing profit tax, Georgia, United Opposition 71 abolishing financial police and declaring financial amnesty. Usupashvili - Republicans Promises also concerned the field of education, 50 GEL 32 Shalva Natelashvili- Labor Movement of Georgia increase of pension, improvements in the field of healthcare 29 Nino burjanadze - Democratic movement and judicial reform. 16 Other political parties: Davit Tarkhan Mouravi, Irma Inashvili – Alliance of Patriots of National Forum 16 Georgia made the following campaign promises: decreasing Industrialists, Our Homeland 14 minimum retirement age and increasing pension up to GEL 24 ISFED observers attended 1280 campaign meetings in total

51 ISFED records meetings that were personally attended by its observers. 52 See ISFED’s pre-election monitoring reports at: http://www.isfed.ge/main/1072/geo/

27 XII. ELECTION DAY

FIRST ROUND OF THE ELECTIONS • 50 trainings for nearly 1000 short-term observers • 4 trainings for 73 DEC observers; • MONITORING MISSION • 4 trainings for 70 mobile groups; • 2 trainings for 15 lawyers; The ISFED observation mission for the October 8, 2016 par- • training for 15 operators. liamentary elections consisted of nearly 950 accredited and trained observers, deployed in precinct, district and central • MONITORING METHODOLOGY electoral commissions. ISFED STOs monitored the process of voting and tabulation of votes throughout the country ISFED carried out the Election Day observation using the using the PVT methodology. ISFED deployed 600 STOs to Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT) methodology. A few days randomly selected national representative sample of polling before the election, ISFED conducted the full Election Day stations throughout Georgia, 195 STOs to potentially prob- simulation to test the internal system and software as well lematic precincts and to precincts particularly worthwhile as the quality and completeness of the reports submitted for observation , 10 STOs were assigned to polling stations by observers through text messages. The simulation was adapted to the needs of persons with disabilities in Tbilisi. In successful as the organization received complete reports from 98% of observers.

On the Election Day ISFED operated the SMS center and the incidents center in its office. Reports received in the SMS Center from observers in the form of text messages were compiled in a special database and verified as needed by operators. Verified information was then processed and analyzed by a team of experts.

All violations detected at the election precincts or districts on the Election Day were reported to the incidents center divided by regions and staffed by 15 lawyers. After con- sulting with lawyers observers took corresponding further actions for each individual violation detected. After they were verified and processed, the lawyers entered each report in the database, which included not only the information about violations reported but also complaints filed with PECs and addition to the STOs, the Election Day monitoring mission DECs. also included 70 mobile teams, 73 DEC observers, 15 lawyers and 15 operators. Three NGOs jointly operated the Elections Portal (www. electionsportal.ge) on the Election Day, mapping violations During the initial stage of preparations for the Election Day reported by individual citizens and NGO observers. ISFED designed the monitoring methodology, system of reporting and communication, databases, monitoring forms, After processing the data through the incidents center and instructions, guidelines and other election materials. At a the SMS center, ISFED compiled a total of 5 statements later stage of preparations, ISFED conducted the following about the polling process, trends identified, violations de- trainings: tected and election results. The statements were published

28 on the official website of ISFED, released in social media opening and setting up of polling stations. Isolated cases of and announced at press-conferences in the Election Media inadequate handling of electoral documentation, restriction Center. of observer rights, campaigning at the polling station and presence of unauthorized individuals at the polling station ISFED held the following 5 press-conferences to release its were found in some precincts. findings about the conduct of the elections: 1. October 8, 2016 at 11:00 – opening/setting up of polling Similarly to the process of opening of polling stations, the stations; voting process went without any major violations and inci- 2. October 8, 2016 at 15:00 – voting process and turnout as dents at most precincts. Instances of inadequate handling of of 12:00; electoral documentation were found at a number of polling 3. October 8, 2016 at 19:00 – voting process and turnout as stations, in addition to isolated instances of violation of ballot of 17:00; secrecy, inking procedures, voting without proper identifica- 4. October 8, 2016 at 22:30 – voting process/closing of tion documents, ballot papers without necessary signatures polling stations; or seals, restriction of observer rights, campaigning and 5. October 9, 2016 at 10:00 – tabulation of votes/PVT presence of unauthorized individuals at the polling station. results. Observers detected tension outside several polling stations but it did not have a material impact on the voting process, except in the case of one polling station.

ISFED observation detected most important violations and irregularities during counting process. Most violations identified at polling stations were related to improper handling of summary protocols. Acts of violence were observed in a number of polling stations. Important violations identified in the counting process questioned validity of results on several polling stations.

Although ISFED observers found violations of electoral procedures in a number of polling stations, including important irregularities, overall these violations did not have a large-scale impact. Isolated incidents could not have had any substantial effect on expression of free will of voters and • KEY FINDINGS therefore, on final results of the proportional elections.

Based on its observation findings, ISFED can confidently • PVT RESULTS state, that in absolute majority of electoral precincts the October 8, 2016 parliamentary elections were conducted Opening and Setting Up of Polling Stations in abidance by legal regulations. ISFED finds that opening of polling stations and the voting process proceeded in a ISFED received reports about opening of polling stations calm and orderly manner without significant violations. The from 100% of its PVT observers. All ISFED observers (100%) process of vote count proved to be a challenge as important were free to observe the process of opening of polling sta- violations and incidents were detected at a number of polling tions. This matched the same data from 2014 elections stations, including acts of violence, which later served as the . basis for invalidating results at several polling stations. 4.2% of polling stations were not ready to receive voters by 08:00am, compared to 8.8% in 2012 parliamentary and In the first round of the parliamentary elections ISFED 1.3% in 2014 local elections. The voting started slightly late observers did not report any significant violations during at these stations but progressed without complications.

29 Voting Process In 98% of polling stations, ballot papers were properly In 98% of polling stations throughout Georgia, voters cast validated with a signature and a seal, which is slightly worse their ballots using appropriate documentation, therefore in than the figure on the 2014 elections when ballots were 2% of polling stations some voters were not requested to properly validated in 99.7% of polling stations; in 2012 par- present identification documents. This figure is almost iden- liamentary elections ballots were properly validated in 97% of tical to the 2014 local self-government elections (97,7%) and polling stations. the 2012 parliamentary elections (97%).

In 98.7% of polling stations voters were always inked, a In 97% of polling stations inking was checked in accordance slight improvement from the 2014 elections when voters with applicable legal requirements, which is statistically were inked in 96% of polling stations, as well as from 2012 almost identical to the 2014 local self-government elec- elections when voters were always inked in 93% of polling tions when inking was always checked in 97.3% of polling stations. stations. Similarly, during the 2012 parliamentary elections inking was properly checked in 97% of polling stations. In 95% of polling stations, ballot secrecy was always en-

30 sured. This figure is similar to that of the 2014 elections and slightly lower than the one from the 2012 elections. In particular, ballot secrecy was ensured in 96.3% of polling stations in 2014 and in 98% of polling stations in 2012.

Cases of harassment and intimidation were found in only 1% of polling stations. There is no statistically significant difference between with the figure from the 2014 elections when such incidents were reported 1.3% of polling stations. Whereas, there is an improvement from the 2012 parliamentary elections, when this figure was 4%.

Counting Process

In 97.9% of polling stations, the counting process went Voter Turnout without any violations, which is close to the figures from the 2012 parliamentary elections (98%) and the 2014 local Voter turnout throughout the country was 52.9%, with a self-government elections (96.6%). margin of error of +/- 0.9%. This is lower than the 2012 parliamentary elections voter turnout of 60.9%. During the vote count, in 99.9% of polling stations pres- ISFED found that by 12:00 voter turnout was 19.7%, with +/- ence of unauthorized individuals was not detected, which 0.3% margin of error. This is a decline from the 2012 parlia- is statistically indifferent from the 2012 parliamentary elec- mentary elections when voter turnout by 12:00 was 25.5%, tions (98.8%) and the 2014 local self-government elections and an increase from the 2014 elections when voter turnout (99.7%). by 12:00 was 16.6%.

In 99.7% of polling stations, voting materials were sealed for ISFED found that by 17:00 voter turnout was 41.8%, with sending to DECs in compliance with applicable legal pro- +/-0.6% margin of error. This is a significant decline from the cedures, which is also statistically not significantly different 2012 parliamentary elections when voter turnout by 17:00 from the 2012 parliamentary elections (99.5%) and the 2014 was 52%, and a higher figure than in the 2014 elections local self-government elections (99.0%). when voter turnout by 17:00 was 34.4%.

At 2.9% of polling stations, no political party representatives Analysis of PVT data also allows ISFED to determine the av- were present. Representatives of the Georgian Dream-Dem- erage time it took a polling station to process a voter based ocratic Georgia were present at 89.1% of polling stations. In on the voter turnout data. According to the information received, from the opening of polling stations until 12:00, 88.7% of these polling stations, electoral subjects did not file 70.7% of PECs processed an average of one voter per any complaints. UNM representatives were present in 87.6% minute, while 29.3% PECs processed 1 to 2 voters a minute. of polling stations. In 87.9% of these polling stations, elec- During the period from 12:00 to 17:00, 77.8% of PECs pro- toral subjects did not file any complaints. Representatives cessed an average of less than one voter per minute, while of Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi, Irma Inashvili – Alliance of Patriots 22.2% of PECs processed 1-2 voters a minute. During the of Georgia were present in 61.3% of polling stations; repre- period between 17:00 and 20:00, 97.3% of PECs processed sentatives of Paata Burchuladze – State for the People were one voter per minute, and 1.3% of PECs processed 1-2 vot- present in 56.6% of polling stations, and representatives er a minute, while the remaining 1.3% was able to process 2 of other political parties were present in 86.2% of polling voters a minute. stations.

31 Final Election Results According to the PVT – PVT Results of RERUN ELECTIONS Proportional Elections ISFED monitored the rerun elections on October 22, 2016, Given the data received by ISFED about the course of the in both Zugdidi and Marneuli DECs and all four electoral Election Day, ISFED is confident in the PVT results. ISFED precincts. received full reports from 99.7% of observers at PVT precincts. On October 19, 2016, under the decision of the CEC, rerun elections for the October 8, 2016 elections were sched- According to the PVT projections, the official results for uled for October 22. The rerun elections took place in four Georgian Dream fell between 48.2% and 50.0%. The official electoral precincts of two election districts. Majoritarian results for the United National Movement fell between 25.9% parliamentary elections were held in majoritarian precinct and 27.7%. According to the PVT, the official result for the №36.22.48 of majoritarian election district №36 (Marneuli), Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi, Irma Inashvili – Alliance of Patriots while in electoral precincts №66.67.38, №66.67.79 and of Georgia, United Opposition should have been between №66.67.108 of majoritarian election district №66 (Zugdidi) 4.6% and 5.2%. Therefore, ISFED could not definitively say voters cast their ballots to elect majoritarian MP as well as whether or not the party cleared the 5% threshold. municipal Gamgebeli (rerun of the October 8, 2016 municipal by-elections). The CEC had invalidated the results on The PVT results for those parties receiving more than 1% are these electoral precincts due to significant incidents that listed in the table below. The PVT projections are calculated occurred. As a result, rerun elections were scheduled. at a 95% confidence level. ISFED observers reported that the rerun voting took place in Election Subjects PVT Point Margin of Minimum Maximum a peaceful environment in all polling stations and no signifi- Estimate Error cant violations occurred. Georgian Dream 49.1% 0.9% 48.2% 50.0% – Democratic Certain irregularities were observed in the electoral precinct Georgia #48 of Marneuli majoritarian election district #36, which United National 26.8% 0.9% 25.9% 27.7% Movement opened late. Notably, due to the lack of space at the polling Davit 4.9% 0.3% 4.6% 5.2% station and a high level of interest of political party repre- Tarkhan-Mouravi, sentatives, media and observers, as well as a high voter Irma Inashvili – Alliance of Patriots turnout, certain problems were observed in the process of of Georgia, United regulation of the flow of voters. Also, the mobile ballot box Opposition list was filled-in improperly but the issue got resolved after it Irakli Alasania – 4.6% 0.3% 4.3% 4.9% was pointed out. Political party leaders and supporters were Free Democrats present outside polling stations both in Marneuli and Zugdidi Paata Burchuladze 3.5% 0.3% 3.2% 3.8% – State for the but it did not lead to any incidents. People Nino Burjanadze 3.4% 0.2% 3.2% 3.6% ELECTION RUNOFFS – Democratic Movement Shalva Natelashvili 3.1% 0.2% 2.9% 3.3% • MONITORING MISSION – Labor Movement of Georgia ISFED monitored the runoff elections on October 30, 2016 Usupashvili - Re- 1.5% 0.1% 1.4% 1.6% publicans in 50 election districts of Georgia. ISFED monitoring mission for the runoffs consisted of over 600 short-term observers, 42 mobile teams and observers assigned to each DECs. Similar to the first round of the parliamentary elections, ISFED relied on PVT for monitoring the runoffs. ISFED assigned 452 short-term observers to electoral precincts

32 randomly selected through a nationally representative sam- • KEY FINDINGS ple. In addition, ISFED observers were present in all electoral precincts of the following election districts: Marneuli no.36, Based on the analysis of PVT results, ISFED can confident- Akhaltsikhe-Adigeni no.44, Kutaisi no.49 and Zugdidi no.66. ly say that, during the runoff elections, opening of polling For the runoffs 10 operators and 11 lawyers worked at the stations and the voting process mostly proceeded in a calm incidents and SMS centers in ISFED central office. and orderly manner throughout the country.

ISFED held the following 5 press-conferences to release its Based on reports of ISFED observers, no substantial viola- findings about the conduct of the runoff elections: tions were found in the process of opening and setting up 1. October 30, 2016, at 11:00 – opening/setting up of poll- of polling stations. Several instances of improper handling ing stations; of documentation, restriction of observer rights and viola- 2. October 30, 2016, at 15:00 – voting process and turnout tion of the procedure for casting of lots were found. During as of 12:00; the voting process, ISFED observers detected the isolated 3. October 30, 2016, at 19:00 – voting process and turnout incidents involving such significant violations as breach of as of 17:00; secrecy of vote and inking procedures. Marneuli Majoritarian 4. October 30, 2016, at 22:30 – voting process/closing of election district proved to be the most problematic in this polling stations; regard. 5. October 31, 2016, at 10:00 – counting of votes/PVT results. ISFED monitoring revealed important types of violations during the process of vote count in several polling stations,

33 including: mismatch in number of ballots and number of vot- of the parliamentary elections when 98% of voters cast their er signatures; isolated cases of improper filling-in or altering vote using appropriate documentation. of summary protocols; a mass violation of ballot secrecy in one polling station. In 99.1% of polling stations inking was checked in accordance with applicable legal requirements, a slight improve- Because the above violations were isolated incidents and ment from the first round of the elections when inking was none of them had a large-scale effect ISFED believes that always checked at 97% of polling stations. they did not appear to influence final election results. In nearly all polling stations (99.9%) the ballot papers were • PVT RESULTS properly validated with a signature and a seal, which is not significantly different to the first round when ballots were Opening and Setting Up of Polling Stations properly validated in 98% of polling stations.

ISFED received reports from 100% of PVT observers about In 99.3% of polling stations voters were always inked, which opening of polling stations. Similar to the first round of the is statistically identical to the reslult of the first round of parliamentary elections, all ISFED observers (100%) were elections when inking was always made in 98.7% of polling free to observe the opening of polling stations. stations.

Only 0.3% of polling stations were not ready to receive the In 97.6% of polling stations, secrecy of vote was always en- first voter by 08:00am, while during the first round of the sured, a slight improvement from the first round when vote parliamentary elections 4.2% of polling stations opened late. secrecy was ensured in 95% of polling stations.

0.3% of polling stations failed to follow the rules for casting Cases of harassment and intimidation on voters were not of lots. No significant violations were detected at 99.5% of reported at any polling station, which is a slight improvement polling stations. from the first round of the elections when acts of intimidation and harassment were found in 1% of polling stations. Voting Process Significant violations during the voting process were identi- In 99.1% of polling stations throughout Georgia, voters cast fied in 0.4% of polling stations. their ballots using proper voter identification documents. This figure is statistically identical to data of the first round

Counting Process on the first round of the parliamentary elections (41.8% +/- 0.6%). In 99.8% of polling stations, counting process went without any violations. This result is statistically similar to that of the Analysis of PVT data also allows ISFED to determine the first round of the elections (97.9%). average time it took a polling station to process a voter based on the voter turnout data. According to the infor- In 100% of polling stations, presence of unauthorized indi- mation received, from the opening of polling stations until viduals was not reported during the counting process. This 12:00, 96% of PECs processed an average of one voter per figure is statistically not different from the first round of the minute, while 4% PECs processed 1 to 2 voters a minute. elections (99.9%). During the period from 12:00 to 17:00, 89.6% of PECs processed an average of one voter per minute, while 10.4% In 0.7% of polling stations, observers present during the of PECs processed 1-2 voters a minute. Between 17:00 and counting process did not have a possibility to view each 20:00, 99.8% of PECs processed one voter per minute and ballot paper and information indicated on it. the remaining 0.2% processed 1-2 voter a minute. Final Results of the Election Day Representatives of the Georgian Dream were present in 89.2% of polling stations, while representatives of the UNM Results of the Majoritarian Elections were present in 79.9% of the polling stations. During the first ISFED received complete reports from 100% of its observ- round the Georgian Dream representatives were present ers, stationed in all electoral precincts of the four majoritarian in 89.1% of polling stations, the UNM representatives – in districts: Marneuli #36, Akhaltsikh-Adigeni #44, Kutaisi #49 87.6%. and Zugdidi #66.

Voter Turnout Marneuli Majoritarian District #36 • #41 Tamaz Navernian – Georgian Dream – Democratic According to ISFED, voter turnout throughout the country Georgia - 72.27% was 37.6% (with +/- 0.9 % margin of error), a significant • #5 Akmamed Imamkuliev – United National Movement decline from the first round on October 8, when the voter - 27.73% turnout was 52.9% (with +/- 0.9 % margin of error). Akhaltsikhe-Adigeni Majoritarian District #44 According to ISFED voter turnout by 12:00 was 12.7% with • #41 Giorgi Kopadze - Georgian Dream – Democratic +/-0.4% margin of error, which is a decline from the 12:00 Georgia - 69.83% turnout on the first round of the parliamentary elections • #5 Vazha Chitashvili - United National Movement - (19.7% +/- 0.3%). Voter turnout by 17:00 was 30.9% with +/- 30.17% 0.8% margin of error, which is lower than the 17:00 turnout Kutaisi Majoritarian District #49 • #41 Koba Narchemashvili - Georgian Dream – Demo- cratic Georgia - 67.33% • #5 Giorgi Tsereteli - United National Movement - 32.67%

Zugdidi Majoritarian District #66 • #41 Edisher Toloraia - Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia - 71.09% • #5 Sandra Elisabed Roelofs - United National Move- ment - 28.91 %

35 XIII. COMPLAINTS FILED ON AND FOLLOWING THE ELECTION DAY

Based on the strategy designed by ISFED, upon detection of a violation observer pointed it out first and requested that commission members take adequate further actions. If the PEC corrected the violation, observer recorded a warning in the PEC logbook. If the PEC failed to take adequate further actions in response to the violation concerned, observer filed a complaint.

Complaints and any other types of actions taken in response to violations had the following important objectives: 1. record a violation and ensure that it is corrected in a timely manner; 2. identify incompetent members of electoral commissions, in order to replace them by qualified individuals in the future and to ensure that training for PEC members covers all issues that proved to be most problematic; 3. develop recommendations for improving the legal framework.

FIRST ROUND OF THE ELECTIONS: VIOLATIONS AND COM- PLAINTS ON AND FOLLOWING THE ELECTION DAY

During the October 8, 2016 parliamentary elections, ISFED detected a total of 53457 violations on and following the polling day. Out of these, in 55 violations ISFED recorded a warning in the PEC logbook, meaning that precinct commissions took adequate further actions and there was no need to file a complaint, which deserves recognition.

In connection to 109 violations, ISFED filed 102 complaints with PECs, and in connection to 462 violations, ISFED filed 244 complaints with DECs. Two complaints were filed in Batumi City Court and one in Kutaisi Appellate Court.

COMPLAINTS FILED WITH PECS

Out of 102 complaints filed with PECs, adequate further actions were taken in response to 17; therefore, ISFED did not file any additional complaint in the next higher level commissions. In remaining cases, ISFED filed complaints with DECs seeking adequate response and resolution of violations.

Most of the complaints filed with PECs (33) concerned improper handling of electoral documentation, 14 concerned improper processing of control sheets, 8 - obstruction of observer rights and 6 – voting without inking, etc.

57 Number of complaints does not match the number of violations because some complaints were filed over more than one violation

36 Statistics of violations over which ISFED filed complaints with DECs:

Improper handling of documentation 33 Other violations 21 Improper processing of control sheet 14 Obstruction of observer’s rights 8 Voting without inking 6 Violations related to sealing of materials 3 Number of ballots exceeding number of signatures 3 Violations of casting of lots 3 Voting without proper documentation 3 Failure to validate a ballot 3 Violation of vote secrecy 3 Campaigning 3 Improper processing of summary protocol 2 Irregularities related to the voter list 1 Control sheet was not inserted in the box 1 Polling station was not set up properly 1 Polling started late 1 Presence of unauthorized individuals at the polling stations 1 Failure to cast lots 1

Complaints filed with DECs

ISFED filed a total of 244 complaints with DECs: 91 complaints were satisfied, 42 were partially upheld, 91 were rejected and 20 were dismissed without consideration.

20 Granted 91 Granted in part 91 Rejected Dismissed without consideration 42

37 Complaints filed with DECs concerned the following types of Number of ballots exceeding signatures on the voter list – violations: 28 complaints over 41 complaints were filed with DECs of Isani, Mtstsminda, Gardabani, Samgori, Krtsanisi, Sagarejo, Polling station break-in - 1 complaint filed with Zugdidi DEC Gldani, Nadzaladevi, Dmanisi, Batumi, Khulo, Terjola, Ozur- geti, Gori, Kaspi, Kutaisi, Gurjaani and Vani Threats against an observer - 1 complaint filed with Lanch- khuti DEC Altering summary protocols – 26 complaints over 71 violations were filed with DECs of Samgori, Nadzaladevi, Kareli, Failure to start voting on time – 1 complaint was filed with Borjomi, Tskaltubo, Khashuri, Akhalkalaki, Lagodekhi, Batu- Batumi DEC mi, Khelvachauri, Khulo, Kobuleti, Gori, Lanchkhuti, Sagare- jo, Mtatsminda and Krtsanisi. Failure to conduct casting of lots – 1 complaint was filed with Marneuli DEC Failure to provide a copy of a summary protocol – 1 complaint was filed with Ozurgeti DEC. Violation of rules of casting of lots – 4 complaints were filed with Marneuli, Khulo, Batumi and Ozurgeti DECs Improper filling-in of the summary protocols – 85 complaints over 195 violations were filed with DECs of Campaigning – 2 complaints were filed with DECs of Chu- Gldani, Kareli, Ozurgeti, Baghdati, Dmanisi, Lanchkhuti, ghureti and Sagarejo Gardabani, Rustavi, Kaspi, Batumi, Vani, Khelvachauri, Kob- uleti, Khulo, Gori, Tskaltubo, Kutaisi, Tetritskaro, Akhaltsikhe, Violation of secrecy of vote – 2 complaints were filed with Khashuri, Didube, Sagarejo, Marneuli, Telavi, Samgori, DECs of Tskaltubo and Kaspi Mtskheta, Terjola, Krtsanisi, Vake, Dusheti, Gurjaani, Mtats- minda and Zugdidi, Voting without proper documentation – 3 complaints were filed with DECs of Batumi, Lagodekhi and Senaki Violation of rules for sealing election materials – 9 complaints over 34 violations were filed with DECs of Mar- Failure to validate a ballot – 3 complaints were filed with neuli, Batumi, Lanckhuti, Kutaisi, Kaspi, Krtsanisi and Kareli. DECs of Tetritskaro, Marneuli and Kutaisi Signatures on the voter list exceeding number of ballots – 5 Voting without inking – 1 complaint was filed with Tskaltubo complaints over 8 violations were filed with DECs of Telavi, DEC over five violations Lagodekhi, Vani and Batumi. Restriction of observer rights – complaints were filed with DECs of Gldani, Sagarejo, Kutaisi, Gori, Akhaltsikhe, Zugdi- Failure to properly validate summary protocols – 5 di, Khelvachauri, Batumi and Rustavi over 11 violations complaints were filed with DECs of Dmanisi and Mtskheta. Improper processing of control sheets – complaints were Improper placement of a ballot in the ballot box – 8 com- filed with DECs of Baghdati, Kutaisi, Marneuli, Terjola, Gur- plaints were filed with DECs of Kutaisi, Rustavi, Ozurgeti, jaani, Lagodekhi, Batumi and Khulo over 14 violations. Batumi, Dmanisi, Sagarejo and Gurjaani.

Improper handling of electoral documentation – 32 Other types of violations – 19 complaints were filed with complaints were filed with DECs of Vake, Krtsanisi, Gldani, DECs of Krtsanisi, Vake, Mtatsminda, Sagarejo, Akhaltsikhe, Nadzaladevi, Tskaltubo, Khulo, Akhalsikhe, Khashuri, Khobi, Khelvachauri, Kaspi, Marneuli, Batumi, Lagodekhi Sagarejo, Khelvachauri, Batumi, Kaspi, Gori, Sighnaghi, Gur- and Gldani. 3 jaani, Lanchkhuti and Tetritskaro.

38 Statistics of complaints filed with DECs:

Inaccurate or incomplete summary protocols 195 Rewritten summary protocols 71 Number of ballots exceeding number of signatures 41 Violations related to sealing of materials 34 Improper handling of documentation 32 Other violations 19 Improper processing of a control sheet 14 Obstruction of observer rights 11 Failure to properly validate a copy of a protocol 8 Voting without inking 8 Violations of casting of lots 5 Failure to validate a ballot 5 Voting without proper documentation 4 Violation of ballot secrecy 3 Campaigning 3 Polling stations break-in 2 Treats made against observer 2 Polling started late 1 Failure to cast lots 1 Failure to provide copy of a summary protocol 1

39 COMPLAINTS FILED IN COURTS

ISFED filed two complaints in Batumi City Court. One sought invalidation of summary protocols of PECs #69.79.01 and #70.79.31, and ordering Batumi DEC #79 to impose a disciplinary liability on members of the PEC #70.79.31.

None of the summary protocols of PEC #70.79.31 had signatures of PEC members. ISFED filed subsequent complaint with DEC seeking invalidation of the protocols and imposition of disciplinary liability on PEC members. The DEC rejected the complaint and under its resolution #85/2016 it found that the summary protocols that lacked signatures were valid. The DEC explained that the protocols had no “legal fault.” At PEC #69.79.01 voting proceeded with violations: for instance, the control sheet was lacking signature of the first voter; PEC members that would accompany the mobile ballot box were not determined on the basis of casting of lots; counting of votes proceeded in a chaotic and noisy environment and it was impossible to identify who a ballot was cast in favor of; un- used ballots were not sealed at a proper time; in one case, the violations did not have a material impact on elections. number of ballots exceeded number of voter signatures on Batumi City Court’s decision about both complaints was the list. Batumi City Court issued a resolution #61/2016 challenged in Kutaisi Appellate Court but the appellate refusing to grant part of the complaint that sought invalida- court upheld the decision of the first instance court. tion of the summary protocols of the PEC #69.79.01 but it imposed a liability on the PEC Chair, deputy chair and the Complaint Demands and Liability Imposed on Commission secretary. Members The second complaint sought invalidation of the summa- Complaints filed with PECs demanded that the violations ry protocol of the PEC #70.79.54 on the results of the be responded and corrected. proportional elections of the parliament of Georgia. Sum of the number of votes and invalid ballots in the protocol ex- In most of the complaints filed with DECs ISFED sought ceeded the number signatures by 8. The Batumi City Court imposition of disciplinary liability on relevant PEC members, found it to be a minor violation and rejected the complaint. including: 147 complaints sought imposition of liability on PEC secretary, 184 – on PEC Chair, and 62 – on other The court combined the complaints and delivered a deci- members of the PEC. Based on ISFED complaints, disci- sion on October 15, 2016, granting part of the complaint; plinary liability was imposed on 343 commission members, in particular, it ordered Batumi DEC #79 to reconsider the including a reproof in 237 cases, a warning in 101 cases, complaint of ISFED and to impose a disciplinary liability salary deductions in 3 cases, premature termination of PEC on members of the PEC #70.79.31 concerned. The court member’s authority in 1 case and imposition of administra- refused to invalidate the summary protocol stating that tive liability in 1 case.

40 Reproof 237 237 Warning 101 Salary deduction 3 Administrative liability 1 Termination of authority 1

*Out of 343 commission members

PEC chairs received reproofs in 89 cases, warnings in 42 cases, their salary was deducted in 2 cases, premature termination of authority occurred in 1 case and administrative liability was imposed in 1 case. PEC secretaries received reproofs in 105 cases, warnings in 39 cases, salary was deducted in 1 case; other PEC members received reproofs in 42 cases and warnings in 20 cases.

Warning issued against secretary 105 105 Warning issued against chair 89 89 Warning issue against other members 43 Warning issued against chair 42 Warning issued against secretary 39 Warning issued against other members 20 Deduction of secretary’s salary 1 Deduction of chair’s salary 2 Chair order to pay a fine 1 Termination of chair’s authority 1

ISFED demanded imposition of administrative liability in for instance, altering of summary protocols, sum of votes 13 cases but the demand was granted only in one case; and invalid ballots exceeding the number of signatures, in particular, DEC #83 of Khelvachauri prepared a proto- etc. The demand was granted in 3 cases and in one case col of administrative offence against the Chair of the PEC Marneuli DEC #35 invalidated results of the proportional #72.83.40 for ripping the complaint of ISFED observer. polling in electoral precinct #34. In remaining cases, PEC Khelvachauri District Court upheld the protocol and or- members concerned were only imposed with a disciplinary dered the chair of the PEC #40 to pay a fine of GEL 500 for liability. obstruction of observer rights.

ISFED demanded invalidation of polling results in three cases – at electoral precincts #38 and #79 of Majoritarian District #66 (Zugdidi) and electoral precinct #54 of Major- itarian District #21 (Gldani). The demand was granted in all three cases. ISFED demanded invalidation of summary protocols and review of polling results in 43 cases due to,

41 RUNOFFS: VIOLATIONS AND COMPLAINTS ON AND FOL- COMPLAINTS FILED WITH PECS LOWING THE ELECTION DAY Out of 42 complaints filed with PECs, 4 were granted On and following the Election Day of the runoffs, ISFED meaning that ISFED did not have to file an additional com- observers took legal actions in response to 105 violations. plaint with relevant DEC. In the remaining cases, subse- Out of these violations, warnings were recorded in log- quent complaints were filed with DECs. books in connection to 14. Most violations cited in complaints filed with PECs con- In connection to 91 violations, ISFED filed 42 complaints cerned improper handling of electoral documentation with PECs and 74 complaints with DECs. One complaint (14 cases); other complaints were filed over presence of was filed in court. unauthorized individuals at the precinct (5 cases), improper processing of control sheets (3 cases), violation of secrecy of vote (3 cases), etc.

Statistics of violations filed with PECs (runoffs):

Improper handling of documentation 14 Other types of violations 6 Presence of unauthorized individuals at the polling station 5 Improper processing of control sheets 3 Violation of ballot secrecy 3 Inking of voters not on the list 2 Voting by inked individuals 2 Failure to check ink 1 Number of ballots exceeding number of signatures 1 Control sheets not matching 1 Voting without proper documentation 1 Restriction of observer rights 1 Violation of casting lots 1 Complaints/claims filed with DECs and in Court Campaigning 1 ISFED filed 74 complaints with DEC’s 29 complaints were satisfied, 15 were granted in part,26 were rejected and 4 were dismissed without consideration.

4 15 Granted Granted in part 26 Rejected

29 Dismissed without consideration

42 complaints filed with DEC’s related to the following types of Doctoring summary protocols – 3 complaints were filed with violations: DECs of Mtatsminda, Kutaisi and Batumi

Improper handling of electoral documentation – 12 com- Inadequately filled summary protocols – 12 complaints were plaints were filed with DECs of Saburtalo, Marneuli, Batumi, filed in connection to 23 violations with DECs of Mtatsminda, Kutaisi, Lanchkhuti and Zugdidi Krtsanisi, Akhaltsikhe, Lanchkhuti, Khelvachauri and Batumi

Presence of unauthorized individuals – 4 complaints were Violations related to sealing of materials – 3 complaints were filed with DECs of Poti, Lanckhuti and Akhaltsikhe filed with the DEC of Krtsanisi in connection to 4 violations

Violation of secrecy of vote – 4 complaints were filed with Violation of ethics by an election administration officer – 1 DECs of Zugdidi, Marneuli and Baghdati complaint was filed with Batumi DEC

Improper filling-in of a control sheet – 3 complaints were Other types of violations – 10 complaints were filed with filed with DECs of Gurjaani and Batumi DECs of Vake, Mtskheta, Sagarejo, Rustavi, Marneuli, Lanckhuti, Batumi, Poti and Zugdidi Voting by inked individuals – 3 complaints were filed with DECs of Marneuli, Zugdidi and Batumi

Illegal obstruction of observer rights – 2 complaints were filed with DECs of Marneuli and Kutaisi

Violation of casting of lots – 2 complaints were filed with DECs of Sagarejo and Batumi

Failure to validate a ballot – 2 complaints were filed with DECs of Kutaisi and Akhaltsikhe

Inking a voter who was not on the list – 2 complaints were filed with DECs of Samgori and Akhaltsikhe

Failure to check ink prior to voting – 1 complaint was filed with the DEC of Baghdati

Voting with improper documentation – 1 complaint was filed with DEC of Akhaltsikhe

Control sheets not matching – 2 complaints were filed with DEC of Khelvachauri

Number of ballots exceeding the number of voter signatures – 7 complaints were filed in connection to 8 violations with DECs of Nadzaladevi, Sagarejo, Rustavi, Marneuli, Batumi and Zugdidi

43 Statistics of violations filed with DECs:

Improper processing of protocol 23 Improper handling of documentation 12 Other violations 12 Number of ballots exceeding number of signatures 8 Violations related to sealing of materials 4 Violation of ballots secrecy 4 Presence of unauthorized individuals at the polling station4 Rewriting summary protocols 3 Voting by inked individuals 3 Improper processing of control sheets 3 Control sheets not matching 2 Failure to validate ballots 2 Inking voters not on the list 2 Violation of casting of lots 2 Restriction of observer rights 2 Voting without proper documentation 1 Failure to check ink before voting 1 Violation of ethics 1

One complaint was filed in Zugdidi District Court in con- of disciplinary liability on secretaries, in 45 cases – on chairs, nection to the decision of Zugdidi DEC about the precinct in 35 cases – on other members. Based on the complaints #66.67.72. The complaint sought invalidation of the pre- filed by ISFED, the following disciplinary liability was imposed cinct results. On this polling station, after the ballot box was on 80 commission members: warning as a form disciplinary opened and ballots were sorted, it was found that voter liability (38 cases), reproof (31 cases), salary deduction (6 cards had been inserted in 35 envelopes together with ballot cases), early termination of authority (5 cases). papers, which allowed identification of voters and constitut- ed violation of the secrecy of vote. ISFED demanded invalidation of the precinct results but Zugdidi DEC refused to Reproof 31 grant the demand stating that there had not been a violation Warning 38 of vote secrecy. Court upheld the position of the DEC and Salary deduction 6 rejected the claim. Early termination of authority 5

*Out of 80 commission members COMPLAINT DEMANDS AND LIABILITIES IMPOSED ON COMMISSION MEMBERS Reproofs were issued against PEC chairs in 6 cases, warn- ISFED filed 41 complaints with PECs demanding actions in ings – in 15 cases, salary deductions occurred in 4 cases, response to violations. In 1 case it demanded invalidation of early termination of authority – in 2 cases. Reproofs were the mobile ballot box but the demand was rejected. issued against PEC secretaries in 7 cases, warnings – in 16 cases, salary deductions occurred in 2 cases, early termina- In majority of complaints filed with DECs, ISFED demanded tion of authority – in 2 cases. Reproofs were issued against imposition of disciplinary liability on relevant commission other PEC members in 18 cases, warnings – in 7 cases and members; in particular, in 29 cases it demanded imposition early termination of authority – in 1 case. Drawing up of a

44 Warning issued against chair 15 Warnings issued against secretary 16 Warning issued against other members 7 Reproof issued against chair 6 Reproof issued against secretary 7 Reproof issued against other members 18 Deduction of chair’s salary 4 Deduction of secretary’s salary 2 Termination of chair’s authority 2 Termination of secretary’s authority 2 Termination of authority of other members 1 protocol of administrative offences was demanded in 3 cas- often had to deal with unconstructive and aggressive es but the demands were rejected. In one of these cases, attitudes. This particularly concerns the DECs of Batumi, disciplinary liability was imposed on PEC members. Lanchkhuti, Ozurgeti and Telavi.

ISFED demanded review of polling results in 9 cases where • During review of complaints, instead of opening and ex- summary protocols were altered, sum of votes and invalid amining documentation, DECs mostly relied on explan- ballots exceeded the number of signatures, a properly vali- atory statements of PEC members, without verifying the dated copy of a summary protocol provided to the observ- information. Often these statements were written after er did not match the protocol submitted to the DEC, etc. the violation was reported, as opposed to when the These demands were rejected. violation was committed, which raised questions about their credibility; In two cases ISFED demanded invalidation of voting results but the demands were rejected. One complaint concerned • Outcomes of the complaints process suggests that DEC PEC #72.83.03 where control sheets did not match, and an- were mostly reluctant to review election results and they other complaint concerned PEC #66.67.72 where secrecy were only willing to impose disciplinary liabilities; of vote was violated in 35 cases, in the same form. • Often DECs rejected complaints stating that gross PROBLEMS/TRENDS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINTS violation of law had not occurred and it had not had any PROCESS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF THE ELECTIONS AND THE effect on election outcomes or free will of voters. This RUNOFFS argument is completely unjustified because gravity of violations varies and most of them may not even have Generally, ISFED complaints were reviewed in adherence to an impact on election outcomes albeit they clearly con- applicable election legislation. ISFED representatives were stitute violation of procedures established by the law. able to attend the adjudication process and voice ISFED’s Hence, it is unacceptable for DECs to ignore procedures positions about the complaints. However, ISFED detected and requirements prescribed by the law with the aim of certain problems related to consideration of complaints and allowing PEC members to escape responsibility; to decisions made by DECs, which need to be corrected: • By ignoring and circumventing requirements in the • In the complaints process some DECs failed to ade- Guidelines for Election Disputes adopted by the CEC, quately examine evidences, summon witnesses and district electoral commissions of Gldani and Kutaisi members of PECs and take their statements. In some refused to consider complaints filed by ISFED observers cases, ISFED observers were prevented from partic- after recognizing the observers as unauthorized repre- ipating in the complaints process to a full extent and sentatives of the organization;

45 • DECs of Kaspi, Khashuri, Zugdidi, Nadzaladevi • In some cases DECs reacted to same types of used the term “dismissing complaint without consideration” violations in a different way, including in DECs of Krtsanisi, in the wrong way, in connection to complaints that were not Mtatsminda, Akhaltsikhe and Batumi. granted; ISFED observers noted poor qualification of some PEC • Some DECs, including Batumi, Khelvachauri, Kaspi, members, especially with regard to filling out of summary Isani and others, mixed up the legal terms “invalidation of a protocols. Summary protocols were lacking certain manda- summary protocol” and “invalidation of voting results”. tory requisites, were filled out improperly or some data had been rewritten without drawing up of a protocol for amend- • Some decisions made by DECs were ill-founded or ing a summary protocol. relevant resolutions did not discuss the violations provided in complaints. This was observed, for instance, in DECs of Lagodekhi, Sagarejo, Rustavi, Tetritskaro, Khashuri, Borjomi, Tskaltubo, Isani, Saburtalo, Krtsanisi, Baghdati, Marneuli, Poti, Akhaltsikhe, Gori, Dmanisi and Ozurgeti.

XIV. RECOMMENDATIONS

The parliament and government should take timely and tions. This will ensure increased professionalism of election effective steps for changing the electoral system. The State commissions and contribute to their independence from Constitutional Commission should reach an agreement on political influence. such Constitutional provision regarding electoral system that will remedy the problems existing under the current To improve the level of professionalism, introduction of system and ensure that the votes of citizens are proportion- mandatory certification requirement for PEC members is ately translated into seats in parliament. At a later stage, a desired. working group, with broad inclusion of stakeholders, should be created for introducing relevant changes to the Election Number of members in electoral commissions should be Code so that the legislation providing for the new electoral reduced to enable hiring of qualified individuals in election system is in place within reasonable time ahead of the next administration. parliamentary elections. In view of the shortcomings identified during the elections, more attention should be paid to training of PEC members, To transform the election administration into a qualified especially in preparing of summary protocols. and impartial entity it is important to revise the rules of composition of all three tiers of the election administration. It is necessary to continue working to improve elector- Preference should be given to professionalization of the al framework and election environment. Ambiguous and administration and selection of members based on qualifica- dubious norms in the Election Code should be clarified – for

46 instance, the law should clearly define the notion of vote buying and determine a competent state agency that takes adequate further actions and has effective leverage for examining vote-buying incidents. Alternative measures of responsibility should exist for vote buying during pre-election period, in proportion to gravity of violations concerned. These issues should be regulated on the basis of the best international practice.

It is important to revise rules that regulate participation in campaigning. For instance, non-commercial legal entities should be prohibited from participating in pre-election campaigning; participation of civil servants in campaigning through social media should be regulated, so should campaigning on the Georgian territory from the territory of a foreign country; norms that regulate participation of charity organizations in campaigning should be clarified as existing provision is inadequate and ineffective, as proven by practice.

To effectively prevent the misuse of administrative resources in favor of a party, the list of officials with unrestricted right to participate in campaigning and canvassing should be nar- rowed down.

It is important to revise the chapter about electoral disputes in the Election Code to clarify ambiguous norms to prevent any inaccurate or inconsistent use of these norms by electoral commissions. Political parties should develop their internal Code of Ethics that will provide for tight sanctions against members or candi- Some polling procedures should be simplified to minimize dates that make discriminatory comments or hate speech. mistakes on part of electoral commission members due to complexity of existing procedures.

To promote women’s participation in politics, legislation should provide for a temporary mandatory gender quotas for party lists. Parties should also introduce voluntary quotas for proportional lists in their party statutes.

Norms that regulate funding from the state budget should be revised and clarified, as they have caused uncertainty and controversy.

The mandate and format of the Interagency Commission for Free and Fair Elections should be clearly defined. Mechanism for monitoring recommendations issued by the Commission should be established.