MENU
Documenting war crimes in Ukraine.
The Tribunal for Putin (T4P) global initiative was set up in response to the all-out war launched by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022.

Similar articles

Conflicting exit polls and numerous infringements in mid-term electionsFascism is here in Russia. Anti-war activities in Russia, 15-22 AugustBelarusian rail partisans who helped save Kyiv from the Russian invaders threatened with death sentences “We’re not celebrating today” – digest of Russian protests (early June 2022)Fake ‘referendums’ at gunpoint planned to try to ‘legitimize’ Russia"s invasion of Ukraine On documenting international crimes committed by the Russian occupiersProminent Crimean Tatar jailed and fined for telling the truth about Russia’s war against UkrainePutin ramps up aggression against Ukraine through so-called ‘Russian citizens’ in occupied Donbas Russia blocks access to Ukrainian jailed for 6 years for social media post Prisoners’ rights to health protection and medical care in 2014-2021: KHPG reportPrisoners’ rights in Ukraine 2014-2021: KHPG reportApplication practice of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of UkraineA brief description of the KHPG strategic litigations in July–December 2020Opinion on the political motives of criminal persecution and violation of human rights in the case of Sergiy PashinskyRussia foists negotiations with Donbas proxies on Ukraine via fake Minsk Agreement roadmapStalin Terror echoes in monstrous sentences for totally fictitious ‘Network’ in Putin’s Russia“Blame the Russian Federation for my death”. Journalist Iryna Slavina driven to self-immolationA brief description of the KHPG strategic litigations in January – June 2020Belarus: Peaceful protester killed in violent crackdown after claimed Lukashenko victoryНасильственные преступления, совершенные в ходе вооруженного конфликта на востоке Украины в 2014–2018 гг

Election watchdog criticizes authorities over flawed mid-term election

28.07.2015

OPORA has reported on the results and given its assessment of the elections in Chernihiv on July 26.  It’s parallel vote tabulation basically coincides with the election results now issued and the exit poll by Sotsis.  As reported,  this exit poll, which was commissioned by the Committee of Voters of Ukraine [CVU] was one of three which gave quite different results.

OPORA found that over 33% had voted for the parliamentary candidate from the Petro Poroshenko Bloc Serhiy Berezenko, while Hennady Korban from the newly formed party the ‘Ukrainian Association of Patriots Ukrop received over 13% of the votes.  Korban was formerly Deputy Head of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration and is seen as a close associate of oligarch and former Head of the same administration, Ihor Kolomoisky.  3 candidates – from Samopomich [the relatively new and most reform orientated party in the Verkhovna Rada]; the Democratic Alliance; and one self-nominated candidate.  The far-right VO Svoboda candidate was next with 6.53% of the votes.

In its preliminary statement OPORA repeats much of the criticism heard on July 26.  It speaks of breaches of election standards and unfair competition between candidates both during the election campaign and on voting day.  The excessive role played by money in the campaign, as well as the lack of proportionate access to media resources, as well as the readiness of the main candidates to use unlawful behaviour, made it harder for voters to form and exercise their electoral choice.

OPORA, however, sees the main problem as being the failure of the authorities to fulfil their obligation and prevent infringements.

Before Election Day, the state’s ability to prevent violations of electoral legislation was put in doubt by its insufficiently active and not infrequently contradictory reaction by the relevant authorities to attempts by candidates to use unlawful methods to secure votes.

The police, OPORA says, concentrated on ensuring public order and paid little heed to election infringements. It stresses that a free vote is impossible where those taking part in elections can infringe the law with effective impunity.

There were no systematic attempts to counter the bribing of voters despite the fact that liability for this had been significantly increased in 2014. Misuse of administrative resource and manipulation of public opinion regarding certain candidates’ alleged access to central and local development programs undermined the public’s faith in the state authorities’ impartiality.

OPORA calls on the law enforcement bodies to ensure a full and objective investigation into all electoral violations. 

More details about the types of infringements here

 Share this