Our observers found that the paper used for the test mode had traces on the reverse side. The Central Election Commission told us that the paper was for educational purposes, and that on election day, the ballot would not violate the confidentiality.
Kurdovanidze said that GYLA observers identified three main problems on a large scale when it came to different types of violations. According to her, it was the violation of secrecy and the presence of cameras, which intensified control, as well as the traces of the ballot.
“When we started to form the mission, we attended information meetings held by Central Election Commission. Our employees who attended one of these meetings discovered that the paper used in the testing mode left a mark on its back. Our staff identified this as a serious problem because the leak left a mark on our ballot paper. On this, they were told it was a paper used for educational purposes. They would have a different ballot on election day.
When we asked the Central Election Commission about the ballot, we also asked for informational meetings. problem. The Central Election Commission responded that it was for educational purposes, and that on the day of election the type of ballot which would not violate secrecy or leave any trace of the ballot will be intended. This letter is public, and the public can learn about it. We found it plausible.
Our observers reported irregularities all day long when we began monitoring the polling day. There were two distinct but related issues – the first was the cameras that were installed in almost every area that our observers were. They were cameras that were delivered and installed by “Georgian Dream”, and they were primarily looking at the box that The Bulletin is folded. The second was that there was a noticeable trail that was left behind. In this case, we had no choice but to react immediately in the areas where observers had noticed it. When the voting day was over, we understood the extent of the problem. We then released a statement that outlined our position. We highlighted three major problems of the voting day – violation secrecy and presence of cameras, which intensified the control, as well as traces left behind ballots.
We started a legal response in the days that followed and followed the procedures set out by law”, said Kurdovanidze.
According to the GYLA chairman, he does not have any hope that the district election commissions can satisfy the complaints made regarding the facts. Kurdovanidze has stated that the dispute will continue at court.
“We filed a formal complaint in every district.” Today, there was a lot of discussion. We do not expect the district election commissions to satisfy these complaints, and we intend to continue this dispute in court. However, it would be easier to win this case at any independent court. This case appears simple because many facts are presented in each constituency. The court may not agree with us, and this case could be continued by the European Court of Human Rights. However, in the eyes of a voter, the case already has a result. “The voter knows that their vote was open. He did not participate in elections, which would be hidden,” Nona said.
Read More @ www.interpressnews.ge