It is also disappointed that the central authorities, as well as local administrations and councils did not take into account the concerns of the Mission, as well as of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE), expressed after the first, invalid vote held on 6 October. Once more, the Gagauz Central Election Commission (GCEC) did not follow time limits prescribed in the electoral law for the printing and distribution of ballot papers.

As with the first elections, the Mission did not carry out an election observation, but merely a political assessment of the election process. To this end, Mission members closely followed preparations in the two weeks preceding the repeated vote and on polling day visited 36 of the 61 polling stations. They also closely followed counting procedures in three locations after the polls closed.

During the preparations and election campaigns, Mission members again noted significant support by representatives of local administrations, councils, as well as central Moldovan authorities for the official candidate of the Communist Party of the Republic of Moldova.

The exclusion of Ilie Stamat, who ranked third in the first round of elections on 6 October with more than 17 percent of the votes, could have influenced the decision of voters in the repeated vote. The Mission noted with concern that the GCEC investigations leading to its decision to exclude him failed to meet required deadlines and lacked transparency. Also of concern is the fact that the Court of Appeal did not provide any legal grounds for its decision in support of excluding him. It also held its hearing without Mr. Stamat's lawyer being present, and deliberated for only 15 minutes before removing him from the ballot. Together these facts call into question the upholding of his rights to a fair hearing and to stand for election.

On polling day Mission Members noted a number of irregularities and shortcomings. On the organizational side, there was again a lack of adequate and prominently displayed voter information. This led again to many instances of open voting as voters, had not been instructed to fold the ballot papers before leaving the both, thereby jeopardizing the secrecy of their votes.

Furthermore, in many instances polling station commissions failed again to properly check the identity of voters. In addition, in some polling stations in the Vulcanesti region, the commissions did not follow instructions to stamp ballot papers on the back after voting, as a safeguard against multiple-voting and ballot stuffing. Ballot papers in these polling stations were stamped before being handed out, negating the safeguard.

A significant case of non-observance of electoral legislation was noted in Baurci (polling station 27) where in the morning, voters were regularly provided with two ballot papers to enable them to vote for family members not present. Of 361 ballot papers issued, about half might have been cast by voters on behalf of others. This is of significant concern, especially because the overall election results were extremely close.

On polling day it was also noted in some stations that representatives and observers of the official candidate of the Communist Party, as well as mayors and even representatives of electoral organs close to that candidate, interfered in the election process by giving electors advice of how to vote. This was concern also raised after the 6 October votes, but not addressed by officials. Similarly, mistakes made in the counting of ballots were repeated.

Nevertheless, the Mission expresses its hope that the forthcoming Moldovan local elections in May 2003, as well as elections to the Gagauz Peoples' Assembly in September 2003, will see a number of improvements in the effectiveness, impartiality, and transparency in the implementation of electoral legislation.

Source: OSCE